What is Wrong With This Theology?

It makes no mention of repentance. While it is true that without the Atonement of Jesus Christ no one could be saved, “faith alone” without repentance does not save anyone either. The Atonement of Jesus Christ makes it possible for those who have sinned to repent of their sins and be forgiven. Genuine repentance without faith still saves; while faith without repentance damns people faster than no faith at all. A pagan who out of a good conscience genuinely repents of his sins will be forgiven, and will not be held accountable for his sins on judgement day; whereas a believer who does not repent will receive a greater condemnation (Matthew 25:14–46; Luke 12:47–48; 19:15–26; John 5:28–29; Acts 10:34–35; Romans 2:6–16). Note in particular the reference to all nations (and religions) in Matthew 25:32; John 5:28; Acts 10:35.

On judgement day, judgement will take place on the basis of people’s works, not their faith alone: “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. 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 12:47–48)

“Penal substitution” means nothing without repentance. It is false theology if repentance is not made an integral part of it. “Imputed righteousness” is even worse. It is an attempt to eliminate repentance as a requirement for salvation. The correct theology is forgiveness and remission of sins through faith and repentance. And to “repent” means to stop sinning. It means to stop doing what is wrong, and start doing what is right. It doesn’t just mean “changing your mind”. It means to “bring forth fruit meet for repentance” (Matt. 3:8). It means to stop breaking God’s commandments, and start keeping them. And keeping God’s commandments is not the same as “works”. It is not the same as “saving yourself,” or “earning your own salvation”. It means doing what is good and right in the sight of God. It means doing good, and abstaining from evil. Ultimately there is no salvation without keeping God’s commandments. The Atonement makes it possible for those who have sinned to repent and be forgiven; but they still need to keep God’s commandments to be saved. That is the true meaning of repentance.

What makes Calvinism and Reformed theology such an abominable heresy is that it effectively cancels out and eliminates the requirement of repentance and keeping God’s commandments to be saved. It says all you have to do is to “believe,” and you are done! Repenting and keeping God’s commandments is something that happens to you willy-nilly once you have “believed,” whether you like it or not! That is the recipe for damnation, not salvation. James says, “But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves” (James 1:22). And Jesus’s constant refrain in the New Testament is, “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” (Matt. 7:21). The gospel of Jesus Christ is all about doing, not just hearing or believing. It is about repenting and keeping God’s commandments. “Faith alone” is a damnable heresy. It is an attempt to excuse and justify people in their sins. And the sooner these guys learn to get rid of it, the better it will be for everyone including themselves.

What is Theology?

After I had posted my previous message regarding the BYU Maxwell Institute podcast which I had commented on, I was searching the Internet on another subject, and stumbled across the following comments made by Louis Midgley, in response to the question: “What is theology?” His answer to that question was as follows:

“Louis Midgley: The Greek word for our English word “theology” was first used by Plato to describe the stories told by poets in a well-ordered city—that is, stories that would charm people into behaving properly. He saw stories about the Gods and divine retribution as Noble Lies, since they tended to put fear of punishments for wrongdoing into the hearts of juveniles and less-than-wise adults. That is, almost everyone.

“With this in mind, it is also proper to note that the word “theology” doesn’t appear in our scriptures. Along with Hugh Nibley, I detest it, since theology is a merely human concoction and hence not what God has revealed to humans.

“Instead, theology is what humans have to say about divine things, much of which is at least bunk.

“Despite much mushy talk about “Mormon theology” (either dogmatic or more or less systematic), the Saints actually live by the stories found in our scriptures, which are then confirmed by their own encounters with the divine. No one has become a truly faithful disciple of Jesus Christ by reading creeds or confessions, or proofs, or schemes fashioned by theologians. This is even true of those determined to set out dogmatic or fashion presumably systematic theologies.” Link

I had previously commented on Louis Midgley’s views on theological issues in an earlier blog post. In responding to the above comments, I want to be a bit careful here, because I don’t want to come across as somehow disparaging, or being critical of Louis Midgley, who by all accounts has been a faithful Latter-day Saint all his life, and has had a long career of faithful service to the Church. Erring in doctrine does not lose anyone’s salvation. Nobody will be condemned for making an honest mistake in doctrine. But errors are still errors, and they need to be corrected. I would like to briefly note the following points regarding the above statement:

1. It is not strictly accurate to say that “the word ‘theology’ doesn’t appear in our scriptures”. The Lectures on Faith, which formed part of the scriptural canon of the Church for nearly a century before they were removed, were originally called “lectures on theology,” and the word theology occurs several times in those lectures. The prophet Joseph Smith makes the following references to those lectures in his journal (emphasis added):

“December 1, 1834—Our school for the Elders was now well attended, and with the lectures on theology, which were regularly delivered, absorbed for the time being everything else of a temporal nature. The classes, being mostly Elders, gave the most studious attention to the all-important object of qualifying themselves as messengers of Jesus Christ, to be ready to do His will in carrying glad tidings to all that would open their eyes, ears, and hearts.” (HC II 175–176)

“January, 1835—During the month of January I was engaged in the school of the Elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling.” (HC II 180)

So it looks like Joseph Smith had no issues with the word “theology”. If it was okay for him, I have no problem with it either.

The School of the Prophets, before which the Lectures were originally delivered, was set up by the specific commandment of the Lord (D&C 88:127, 136-137; 90:7; 95:10); and Joseph Smith would not have been permitted by the Lord to allow anything to be taught in it which did not have his approval. I personally believe that the Lectures on Faith (or “lectures on theology” as they were originally known) are divinely inspired, and constitute true scripture, and that Joseph Smith was indeed the true author of them; and therefore they will someday be recanonized, and reinstated in the standard works of the Church.

2. His assertion that “theology is a merely human concoction and hence not what God has revealed to humans,” likewise can be challenged. In the Lectures on Faith, out of a bewildering array of different “definitions” of the word “theology” that has been given by various theologians, lexicographers, and dictionaries, Joseph Smith chose the one given in Buck’s Theological Dictionary, as follows:

“It is that revealed science which treats of the being and attributes of God, his relations to us, the dispensations of his providence, his will with respect to our actions, and his purpose with respect to our end.”

This definition of the word “theology” is not identical to Buck’s original definition. It contains one variation: the word “revealed” did not exist in Buck’s original definition, but was added by Joseph Smith. The addition of this word by Joseph Smith is significant. It is indicative not only of how he views the “science of theology” (that it is a revealed science), but also of what he considers to be the source and origin of his own theological exposition: the Lectures on Faith. It is a revelation from God, not the product of his own (or somebody else’s) imagination. Charles Buck’s Theological Dictionary is available online, and can be seen here (and other sources).

3. His assertion that “theology is what humans have to say about divine things,” is something that no respectable theologian, of any school or tradition, would recognize. Christian theologians generally claim that their theology is derived from the Bible. They may not have always understood all of the biblical passages correctly, that is possible; but that is not the same as saying that it is not scripture based at all—when they all claim that it is. Making such sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions is not the right way of engaging in a respectful dialogue with people with whom one might have a legitimate disagreement. When they claim that their theology is scripture based (and provide evidence to support it), we owe them the courtesy of giving them the benefit of the doubt, and examining their claims carefully before voicing any disagreements.

4. His statement that “the Saints actually live by the stories found in our scriptures, which are then confirmed by their own encounters with the divine” is likewise questionable. The scriptures don’t just tell stories. They also contain commandments, and also teach doctrines. The Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:2–17; Deut. 5:6–21); or the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. Ch. 5–7); are not “stories,” they are commandments. Similarly, Deut. 6:4–5; Mark 12:29–34; are not “stories”. They teach doctrine—theology if you like—that is another way to describe it.

When the Savior appeared among the Nephites, he came to give them commandments, not just tell them stories:

3 Nephi 18:

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

He also came to teach them doctrines:

3 Nephi 11:

35 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and I bear record of it from the Father; and whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost. • • • 39 Verily, verily, I say unto you, that this is my doctrine, and whoso buildeth upon this [doctrine] buildeth upon my rock, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them.

We “build” upon his doctrines, not stories (unless the stories contain doctrine). That is the same as theology. That in essence what theology is.

How many “stories” are there in the book of Doctrine and Covenants? The name speaks for itself. It contains doctrines and commandments. Is he really willing to throw the book of Doctrine and Covenants under the bus, in which God himself speaks, by his own voice, in person? That again is what theology is. The Doctrine and Covenants is the most theologically driven book of scripture of any that there is. Sections 84, 88, or 93 contain pure theology, nothing else. There is nothing strange or mysterious about theology.

5. And his last quote is, “No one has become a truly faithful disciple of Jesus Christ by reading creeds or confessions, or proofs, or schemes fashioned by theologians.” Does that include the Articles of Faith? The Articles of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a creed—like it or not! The word “creed” is derived from the Latin credo, which means “I believe”—which is what the Articles of Faith is! It is a declaration of what Latter-day Saints believe. It is a fully fledged “creed”—but without being called such.

People become “faithful disciples of Jesus Christ” by believing in him, exercising faith, committing themselves to his service, studying his word, learning his true doctrines, teachings, and commandments, and striving to live by them—and when they do those things, they are doing theology—whether they know it or not. That is what theology is. There is nothing mysterious about doing theology.

‘Thinking Otherwise,’ with James E. Faulconer

I came across the above podcast by the BYU Maxwell Institute, an interview of James Faulconer by Morgan Davis, regarding his recent publication, Thinking Otherwise: Theological Explorations of Joseph Smith’s Revelations. It is an hour long interview, which is too long to give it a detailed review; so I will be selective, and comment on some main highlights. The transcript can be found here. At around 03:21 minutes into the video James Faulconer gives the following response to an earlier question by Morgan Davis:

Faulconer: … having written a piece in which I argued—well, I gave it at a conference at Yale—I argued fairly strenuously that we ought not to have a theology. I still agree with what I said in that piece, but what I intended was that the church doesn’t need an official theology. And I still believe that really strongly. I think it would be a mistake for us to have some kind of officially curated and declared theology, I like it the way it is right now. I think it’s the best way to do it. But I don’t think that means we shouldn’t have theology and I never have thought that we shouldn’t do theology at all.

There are several issues with that statement. The first is, What does he mean by “official” theology? A theology can be correct or incorrect; it can be scriptural or not. But “official” and “unofficial” don’t seem to mean a lot as far as I can tell.

If by that he means that the Church should have no theology at all, that is impossible. The Church as an ecclesiastical institution has a theology—like it or not. It couldn’t exist as a church if it didn’t have one. When in the first article of faith it says, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost,” that is theological statement. When in the second article it states, “We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression,” that is a definite theological statement. The same applies to the remaining articles. The Church couldn’t exist as a church if it did not have a theology. It wouldn’t be a “church” if it didn’t.

If by that he means that the Church doesn’t need to have an officially recognized theological treatise, like some kind of a textbook, again, that would depend on what he means by it. If he means that the Church can survive without one, the answer is yes, it can. If he means that the the Church’s theological position or status couldn’t be enhanced if it did have one, I would have to disagree. But it would have to be something that is given by revelation, not created by some man. In fact, the Church already has such a theological treatise. It is called the Lectures on Faith by the prophet Joseph Smith. It is the greatest theological treatise that has ever been written—although it is not complete. It is the initial chapters of a much larger work, the completion of which remains yet to be revealed. But still, it is the greatest theological treatise that has ever been written, even in its present limited form—and was given by revelation. Then the following exchange takes place:

Davis: Right, right. Okay, so the main title of the book is Thinking Otherwise, and that’s a little provocative, thinking otherwise about what? It seems to kind of indicate that maybe we haven’t been thinking right about something.

Faulconer: … The idea is that if we understand what Joseph Smith has revealed it gives us a way of thinking about the world, about God, about all kinds of things differently than the tradition has thought it. I think that we have often—especially when we’re doing theology, we have not taken advantage of that opening that Joseph Smith gives us to think about these questions other than the tradition thinks about them.

That is a very vague, generalized statement, which is not very meaningful to anyone. What “tradition” is that, and whose “tradition” is it? That requires some explanation to be meaningful. Consider this quote from the canonized scripture of the Church:

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

Is that doctrine “traditional” or not? If not, why not? If yes, how is Joseph Smith’s theology any less “traditional”? If you said that Joseph Smith has given us more information, more divine knowledge, than what we had before, that would be a correct statement. If you said that he has told us things about God, and about spiritual and heavenly things that we didn’t know before, that would be a true statement. If you said that he has given us more scripture, more word of the Lord than what we had before, that would be a true statement. But talking about it in terms of “traditional” vs. “non-traditional” doesn’t mean a lot, unless those terms are clearly defined and clarified. It is not a meaningful distinction. The interview then continues:

Davis: And it seems too that you’re advocating for a different way of thinking about theology itself perhaps. We’re calling it theology but it’s not a systematic, programmatic kind of theology.

Faulconer: Certainly not. In fact the book moves away from something that’s more familiar to people I think, which is a kind of propositional statement of “Here are some beliefs,” toward what I think is a different kind of theology that is called “performative theology,” which is a matter of thinking about scripture and analyzing scripture and responding to scripture. And I think that is, at least from my point of view, perhaps the most important kind of theology we do.

There are several issues with that: The first is that he is implying that traditional Christian theology is somehow not scripture based, which of course is not correct. Christian theologians claim their theology is scripture based. They may have misunderstood that scripture at times, and therefore not always got their theology perfectly right; but that is a different thing from claiming that it is not scripture based at all. (See the short video on systematic theology by Wayne A. Grudem posted below.) The second issue I have with that statement is that, as we listen to the rest of his conversation, he provides very little “scripture” to support his own theological assertions. It is his theology in fact that is not scripture based. The third point is that the Lectures on Faith by Joseph smith is very much “systematic” and “programmatic”. It appears that Joseph Smith very much believed in a “systematic” and “programmatic” theology. Skipping a few lines down, the conversation then continues as follows:

Davis: Let’s dive into chapter one, “The One and The Many.” You waste no time, you charge right into the thorns and nettles where philosophy and theology intersect. You write on page 2, “Despite its seeming irrelevance to us most of the time the philosophical problem of the one and the many and philosophy’s answer to it is at the heart of Christian theology. Given what is at the heart of Christian theology, perhaps the best thing to do is to drive a stake through it. But even then it would be too late.” So those are strong words! … So what is this problem of the one and the many that you’re referring to?

Faulconer: The one and the many—it’s a problem that begins in at least the 5th century BC. And the question is, the universe, the cosmos, the world, whichever term you want to use there, is it ultimately one thing or many things? And the traditional answer has been—and Parmenides, this early Greek philosopher has given his reasons for thinking so—but the traditional answer has been, “Well, there’s just one ultimate thing.”  And one reason for that is to say if there are two ultimate things, then you have to explain them and you’d refer to some anterior, ultimate thing and it would be the one. So there’s still just be one. So that’s been the argument for thousands of years, and yet it seems to me that the revelations Joseph Smith gives us say that ultimately there is no “One.” There is no one thing that explains everything. There are multiple ones—intelligence, raw matter, God. At least those. And if you say, “Well then what’s behind them?” The answer is, “There’s nothing behind them, that’s what there is.”

What he is insinuating there (and in the remaining conversation, which I will skip in the interest of brevity) is that the idea of “one eternal and everlasting God” in Christian theology, and that he is the sole creator and governor of all things etc., is derived from Greek philosophy, which is absolute rubbish and utter nonsense, and unjustified by all considerations. No concept is declared in the Bible (Old and New Testaments) more clearly, emphatically, repeatedly, and unambiguously than that there is one God, who is infinite, eternal, and unchanging, from everlasting to everlasting, and that he is the creator of all things:

Exodus 20:

3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. Deuteronomy 4: 35 Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the Lord he is God; there is none else beside him. • • • 39 Know therefore this day, and consider it in thine heart, that the Lord he is God in heaven above, and upon the earth beneath: there is none else. Deuteronomy 6: 4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

Deuteronomy 32: 39 See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand. 2 Samuel 7: 22 Wherefore thou art great, O Lord God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. 1 Kings 8: 60 That all the people of the earth may know that the Lord is God, and that there is none else. 2 Kings 5: 15 And he returned to the man of God, he and all his company, and came, and stood before him: and he said, Behold, now I know that there is no God in all the earth, but in Israel: now therefore, I pray thee, take a blessing of thy servant. 2 Kings 19: 15 And Hezekiah prayed before the Lord, and said, O Lord God of Israel, which dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth; thou hast made heaven and earth.

• • •

19 Now therefore, O Lord our God, I beseech thee, save thou us out of his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord God, even thou only.

1 Chronicles 17: 20 O Lord, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears. Nehemiah 9: 6 Thou, even thou, art Lord alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of heavens, with all their host, the earth, and all things that are therein, the seas, and all that is therein, and thou preservest them all; and the host of heaven worshippeth thee. Job 9: 8 Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and treadeth upon the waves of the sea.

Psalm 18: 31 For who is God save the Lord? or who is a rock save our God? Psalm 33: 6 By the word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth. Psalm 46: 10 Be still, and know that I am God: I will be exalted among the heathen, I will be exalted in the earth. Psalm 83: 18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is Jehovah, art the most high over all the earth. Psalm 86: 8 Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord; neither are there any works like unto thy works. • • • 10 For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone. Psalm 90: 2 Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Isaiah 37: 16 O Lord of hosts, God of Israel, that dwellest between the cherubims, thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth: thou hast made heaven and earth. • • • 20 Now therefore, O Lord our God, save us from his hand, that all the kingdoms of the earth may know that thou art the Lord, even thou only. Isaiah 41: 4 Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he. Isaiah 42: 8 I am the Lord: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images. Isaiah 43: 10 Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. 11 I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour. Isaiah 44: 6 Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. • • • 8 Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any. • • • 24 Thus saith the Lord, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the Lord that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself;

Isaiah 45: 5 I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: • • • 18 For thus saith the Lord that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the Lord; and there is none else. • • • 21 Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the Lord? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.

22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else. Isaiah 46: 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, 10 Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: Hosea 13: 4 Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me. Joel 2: 27 And ye shall know that I am in the midst of Israel, and that I am the Lord your God, and none else: and my people shall never be ashamed. Zechariah 14: 9 And the Lord shall be king over all the earth: in that day shall there be one Lord, and his name one. Mark 12: 29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord: • • • 32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

• • •

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God.

Luke 1: 37 For with God nothing shall be impossible. John 1: 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. • • • 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. John 17: 3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent. Romans 3: 30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith. Romans 11: 36 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen. 1 Corinthians 8: 4 As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. Galatians 3: 20 Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one. Ephesians 4: 5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Colossians 1: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Colossians 2: 9 For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily. 1 Timothy 1: 17 Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honour and glory for ever and ever. Amen. 1 Timothy 2: 5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; 6 Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time. James 2: 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 1 John 5: 20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. Jude 1: 25 To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Revelation 1: 8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty. Revelation 4: 11 Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created.

And modern LDS scripture confirms this without reservation:

2 Nephi 2:

15 And to bring about his eternal purposes in the end of man, after he had created our first parents, and the beasts of the field and the fowls of the air, and in fine, all things which are created, it must needs be that there was an opposition; …

Alma 18:

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

Alma 22:

10 And Aaron said unto him: Yea, he is that Great Spirit, and he created all things both in heaven and in earth. Believest thou this?

Mormon 9:

11 But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

17 By these things we know that there is a God in heaven, who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God, the framer of heaven and earth, and all things which are in them;

Doctrine and Covenants 38:

1 Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I Am, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made;

2 The same which knoweth all things, for all things are present before mine eyes;

3 I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me.

Doctrine and Covenants 45:

1 Hearken, O ye people of my church, to whom the kingdom has been given; hearken ye and give ear to him who laid the foundation of the earth, who made the heavens and all the hosts thereof, and by whom all things were made which live, and move, and have a being.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:

13 The light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things, which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:

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

Moses 3:

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.

Moses 6:

63 And behold, all things have their likeness, and all things are created and made to bear record of me, both things which are temporal, and things which are spiritual; things which are in the heavens above, and things which are on the earth, and things which are in the earth, and things which are under the earth, both above and beneath: all things bear record of me.

So it looks like according to him, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price (and the Bible) all came from Greek Philosophy! If carefully examined, it is his theories that are philosophical, or more correctly, speculative, rather than anything else. They are purely imaginative, rather than based on any scripture. Here is an interesting short video (6 minutes long) by Wayne A. Grudem, who has authored a well-known and popular book on systematic theology, explaining the scriptural basis of it:

Try telling him that his theology is based on Greek Philosophy! Skipping quite a lot of material, and jumping to around 31 minutes into the podcast, the conversation then continues as follows:

Davis: … But, I think you make the point that we haven’t fully appreciated this shift that the Restoration brings about. What are some of the ways that you see Latter-day Saints still sort of thinking in terms of “The One” that might not be beneficial?

Faulconer: Well, I think that it isn’t at all uncommon for us to really mix, in an odd way, traditional theological ideas about God and the way that he is perfect or the way that he is in time or not in time or all kinds of things like that. With the revelations of Joseph Smith we end up with this odd mishmash of things, so that if you say to someone, “Well, let’s talk about God” they will say things like, “Well, he obviously can’t be in time.” And yet, he does have a body so it’s hard to think of how he couldn’t be in time. Or they will say, “Well, he has a body and since it’s not like ours,” and they end up talking about it very much in the same kinds of terms that one might talk about “The One.” We think about our relationship to God in terms of somehow we are going to become like him, but when we think about what it means to be like him, we think in traditional terms rather than in the terms of Joseph Smith. We think somehow, his perfection means knowing every minutia about the whole world, never changing in any way whatsoever. I mean, we’ve set for ourselves an impossible ideal, not just because it’s unachievable, but because it doesn’t make any sense.

Davis: It doesn’t exist.

Faulconer: It doesn’t exist! But we make up this fantasy, as it were. We accept this fantasy idea of God and then say, “Well, that is what I should be like.” And are just distraught when we can’t be like what doesn’t exist.

He makes a number of statements in there that can be challenged:

1. The Book of Mormon teaches that God is outside of time:

Alma 40:

8 Now whether there is more than one time appointed for men to rise it mattereth not; for all do not die at once, and this mattereth not; all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

2. Having a physical body does not preclude one from existing outside of time; scripture teaches that during the Millenium, time will be abolished. Everyone will live outside of time:

Revelation 10:

6 And sware by him that liveth for ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things that therein are, and the earth, and the things that therein are, and the sea, and the things which are therein, that there should be time no longer:

Doctrine and Covenants 84: 100 The Lord hath redeemed his people; And Satan is bound and time is no longer. The Lord hath gathered all things in one. The Lord hath brought down Zion from above. The Lord hath brought up Zion from beneath. Doctrine and Covenants 88: 110 And so on, until the seventh angel shall sound his trump; and he shall stand forth upon the land and upon the sea, and swear in the name of him who sitteth upon the throne, that there shall be time no longer; and Satan shall be bound, that old serpent, who is called the devil, and shall not be loosed for the space of a thousand years.

3. Modern LDS scripture explains what it means to “become like him”:

Doctrine and Covenants 132:

20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:

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

It means becoming omnipotent and omniscient as God is. It means acquiring all the attributes of divinity, including infinity, eternity, absoluteness, and everlastingness. He is basically saying that scripture doesn’t mean what it says. He likes his own imaginative speculations more than what scripture says. He is essentially an Open Theist, but he is a bit reluctant to admit it. To that then Davis adds the following:

Davis: It seems like perfectionism is really one of those things where if the command is “Be ye therefore perfect,” and we think perfect means this sort of platonic ideal or whatever or a God that is incomparably other than us, how can we ever get there? It’s just an overwhelming command and it breaks us down sometimes. So is the God of classical theism, The One, which most mainstream Christians might still subscribe to and the God of Latter-day Saint belief—are we talking about completely different beings? Can we not have a conversation with other Christians that believe in “The One?” It gets thorny.

All the incorrect principles are coming from them. The Book of Mormon teaches that in the last days, the Lord will restore the gospel through the Gentiles, rather than the house of Israel; because the Gentiles believe in him, and the house of Israel don’t (3 Nephi 16:7). God respects the Gentiles for their “belief in him,” so much so that he chooses to restore the gospel in the latter days through them, rather than through the house of Israel. If what they are saying is true, God restores the gospel in the last days through the Gentiles, because the Gentiles believe in Greek philosophy, and the house of Israel don’t! Then skipping quite a lot more of the conversation, at around 40:55 minutes into the video, in response to an earlier question raised concerning the problem of “evil” in Christian theology (how can God be good, and still permit evil in the world), Faulconer adds:

Faulconer: Yeah. I think that if I believed that God is a being like the tradition describes who has all power and all knowledge and who still lets these bad things happen, then I would have to stop believing in God as well. I don’t think I could be a believer. If I was a believer I would have to be a really cynical believer.

So his solution to the problem of evil is that God can neither be all-knowing nor all-powerful, which again is contrary to all revealed scripture, both ancient and modern. He is denying the omnipotence and omniscience of God, which are entirely biblical and scriptural; see the previous quotes. That is Open Theism. I have discussed both topics elsewhere in my blog, so there is no need to add more. The conversation then continues as follows:

Davis: Let’s talk about the truth. You have a whole section on truth. And let me draw you out on this. You mention John 14:6 where Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” So, rather than truth being this abstract concept of “The One,” you now have a living dynamic person in the presence of Jesus. And so, that’s a really powerful notion of truth. And yet, we also have statements in other parts of our canon, our standard works, where we have, for example, in Jacob 4:13: “The spirit speaketh the truth and lieth not. Wherefore it speaketh of things are they really are and of things as they really will be.” Or D&C 93:24, where we have, “Truth is knowledge of things as they are and as they were and as they are to come.” So, are we dealing with different definitions of truth across the scriptures?

Faulconer: Yeah, I think the first thing I would say is I don’t think the word “truth” always means exactly the same thing. There are probably very few words in the scriptures that always mean exactly the same thing. Words mean what they mean in their context, and in usages, and when they have histories, and so on. But I do think that if we do think about truth, what I find interesting about scripture is that there are statements like those in Jacob that you mention, but the one from the Doctrine and Covenants is especially interesting to me because it there defines truth as knowledge. So, in that case, truth is the knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they will be. Now that is radically different than any definition of truth that I know of in the history of thought, Western thought. There, truth is defined in a variety of ways, but usually we talk about a knowledge of truth rather than knowledge being the truth. So if that’s the case, truth is a kind of state of one’s being, and I think that matches with the idea that Christ is the Truth. Christ exemplifies a particular way of being in the world and truth is a knowledge of that way of being in the world. So for me that’s really an important insight given to us in Latter-day scripture. I think it’s also important to recognize, as I said, that it doesn’t always mean the same thing. Truth in the Jacob scripture means something like “propositional truth.” And so, there’s nothing wrong with using the word in that way, but I think it’s important to recognize that probably the most fundamental meaning for us is this way of being in the world. Truth is a way of being related to other beings, things as well as persons, in the world.

The significance of defining truth in D&C 93:24 as “knowledge,” is the recognition that truth is knowable, and therefore it is known. There is no such thing as “truth” which is unknown, or is unknowable. If something is unknowable, and therefore is unknown, then it is not “truth,” by definition. There is one being who has all knowledge, and therefore knows all truth, and that is God. D&C 93:24 is essentially an acknowledgement of the omniscience of God. It doesn’t mean that truth is relative, or that one man’s “truth” can be different from another man’s “truth”. When it defines truth as “knowledge” of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come, that means that truth is not relative. It is not one thing for one person, and something different for another person. And when Jesus identifies himself as “the truth …,” it means that he is the embodiment of truth:

John 18:

37 … To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice.

It doesn’t have to be any more complicated than that. Then jumping further down, the following exchange takes place:

Davis: You know, people get nervous at the statement that truth is relative. They say, “You’re relativizing everything, and there have to be eternal truths that are immutable, unmovable, unchangeable.” So how do you think about that?

Faulconer: Well usually when we think about truth being relative we ultimately mean something like, “It means whatever I want it to. Whatever is convenient for me.” And I think that is an obviously ridiculous way to understand the truth. But I do think it makes sense to say that even propositional truth is relative to the circumstances and contexts in which a person thinks it or says it or understands it or whatever. And that that’s probably why for me the most important definition is that truth is not a proposition but a way of being. If I say to myself, “Jesus Christ is the Truth,” then what I’m saying is living in the world in the way that he would or that he does, is living truthfully. Now, that does relativize it to a certain extent, but it doesn’t relativize it to my desires or my convenience or something like that. It sets a pretty high bar if I were to decide to do something other than what’s commanded, for example. The bar for doing that is not just my particular pleasure. So, I think that the relativized version of this is relativized to a being who has perfected his way of being relative to other beings.

That is his roundabout way of saying that truth is still relative—but not in the sense that I get to decide for myself what is truth for me and what is not. One man’s “truth” can still be different from another man’s “truth,” depending on the circumstances. What is “truth” for one person; at a given time, place, or circumstance; may not be “truth” for another—which of course is entirely incorrect and unjustified on all accounts. Truth is absolute, not relative. It is objective, not subjective. It is not “my truth” versus someone else’s “truth”.

My “knowledge” of something as it is can never be different from another person’s “knowledge” of the same thing as it is. The “truth” about gravity for me can never be different from the “truth” about gravity for someone else. Someone may have wrong ideas about gravity, and think that they can jump out of the window and nothing happens—and soon discover their mistake if they tried. But that does not mean that “truth” about gravity has changed; it means that somebody had wrong ideas. So the bottom line is that these folks are teaching a whole bunch of incorrect principles, and leading people astray. Latter-day Saints deserve something better than that.