Second Conversation Between Pastor and LDS

 

Pastor Jeff and David Snell have had their second conversation about the beliefs, teachings, and doctrines of the Church, in which 5 questions and answers were exchanged. I will skip the first two, and briefly comment on the last three. At 5:50 minutes into the video Pastor Jeff asks the following question:

“Help me understand the LDS teaching on Atonement, specifically the emphasis on the garden of Gethsemane?”

The significance of Gethsemane in the Atonement process in the theology of Latter-day Saints is derived from teachings found in modern scriptures, as well as in the Bible, such as the following:

Mosiah 3:

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

Doctrine and Covenants 19:

18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—

19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.

These verses refer to his experience in the garden of Gethsemane, as described in these verses in the New Testament:

Matthew 26:

38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death: tarry ye here, and watch with me.

39 And he went a little further, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Mark 14:

33 And he taketh with him Peter and James and John, and began to be sore amazed, and to be very heavy;

34 And saith unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful unto death: tarry ye here, and watch.

35 And he went forward a little, and fell on the ground, and prayed that, if it were possible, the hour might pass from him.

36 And he said, Abba, Father, all things are possible unto thee; take away this cup from me: nevertheless not what I will, but what thou wilt.

Luke 22:

42 Saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done.

43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.

44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Pastor Jeff thinks that what Jesus experienced in Gethsemane was the result of what he “anticipated going to the cross,” which doesn’t make a lot of sense. Thousands of people were crucified by the Romans in those days. They went bravely to their deaths without having had a “Gethsemane experience” before they were crucified. Were they braver than Jesus? Thousands of early Christians were martyred in Rome by being crucified, or burned at the stake. They went bravely to their death without having a “Gethsemane experience”. Were they braver than Jesus? So Jesus was such a weakling coward, and so scared of the cross, that he “sweated blood” in Gethsemane at the thought, and an angel had to come down from heaven to “strengthen” him—something that never happened to any other Christian who had the same experience? How does that make sense? And how does it compare with the calm and collected way in which Jesus stood before Pilate before being crucified? Pastor Jeff must have a very low opinion of Jesus, if he thinks that he “sweated blood” in Gethsemane because he was scared to death of the cross!

The Atonement took place through the shedding of his blood on the cross, no doubts about it. That is not in dispute. He also suffered intense sufferings on the cross, in addition to the pains normally associated with crucifixion. But that does not discount the fact that he also experienced intense suffering in Gethsemane as part of the Atoning process, as described in the previous quotes from the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants. Those verses suggest that Jesus suffered intense sufferings throughout his life, such as hunger, thirst, and fatigue etc. (including severe temptations from the devil), all of which in fact were part of the Atoning process. But the ultimate act of the Atonement culminated on the cross, where he offered his life as a sacrifice for sin. But all of his sufferings throughout his life were part of the Atoning process, including what he experienced in Gethsemane, which was probably the most intense. Paul refers to that experience in these words:

Hebrews 12:

3 For consider him that endured such contradiction of sinners against himself, lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds.

4 Ye have not yet resisted unto blood, striving against sin.

That is a reference to what happened in Gethsemane, not on the cross. According to the Bible, Jesus “learned obedience” by the things which he suffered, and was “made perfect” through sufferings (Hebrews 2:9-11; 5:8-9). He experienced those “sufferings” throughout his life, and all of them were part of the Atoning process, not just the ones he experienced on the cross. Pastor Jeff would be a lot smarter and wiser if he tried to learn from LDS theology and doctrine, instead of finding fault. At 13:12 minutes into the video he asks the following question:

“how do you understand and experience the Holy Spirit?”

My answer to that question would be, “The same as any other Christian would or should”. That is a kind of loaded question. It is an indirect allusion to the LDS claim of being able to know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, or that the Church is true. The more important question underlying that is, Does the Bible teach that the Holy Ghost reveals truth? The answer is Yes, it does:

Matthew 16:

17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

John 14:

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

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

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

John 16:

12 I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.

13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

14 He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you.

1 John 2:

20 But ye have an unction [anointing] from the Holy One, and ye know all things.

• • •

27 But the anointing [Holy Ghost] which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

So there is no doubt that the Bible teaches that the Holy Ghost reveals truth. It leads us in fact to all truth. And it is a gift that is given to all true believers in Jesus Christ, not just to a few. So my question is, Does Pastor Jeff believe this? And if so, how does he understand it taking place? Has he ever had any personal experience of that? If so, how would he describe it? If he has never had that experience, shouldn’t he be concerned? because Jesus says that it is a gift that is given to all true Christians, in order to lead them to all truth? And if indeed he has had that experience, how would he describe it? When he has answered those questions for me, I will answer his question, because both answers would be the same. By answering my question, he will have answered his own question.

Protestant Christians generally tend to deride, be dismissive, question, or cast doubt on LDS claims to be able to know by the power of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon is the word of God, or that the Church is true. They derisively equate it with “feelings,” and say that is not a “reliable” way of knowing the truth. They counter it by asking us to explain and describe to them exactly “how” we “know,” or have that experience. The answer is that the Bible doesn’t explain or describe “how” it happens, and neither do we. But just because we can’t describe or explain “how” it happens, it doesn’t follow that therefore it doesn’t happen, or can’t happen. So my answer to those who ask that question is, Do they deny that the Bible teaches that we can know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost? And if they accept that it does, how do they think that it happens? The truth is that the Bible doesn’t explain “how” it happens; it just says that it does. By questioning Latter-day Saint claims to be able to know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost, they are undermining their own faith in the Bible, and discrediting their own Christian credentials, because it is the Bible in fact that says that we can know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. Peter had received a personal witness and revelation from God, disclosing to him the true identity of Jesus (Matthew 16:17), but evidently he didn’t know it himself, and Jesus had to tell him. That is how divine truth is communicated by the power of the Spirit of God.

At around 10:12 minutes into the video Pastor Jeff responds to the LDS objection of Christianity being divided into so many different competing sects and denominations etc., and his answer is that the differences are “just different emphases we might put on certain doctrines, or the way we might practice them,” but that “when it comes to core essential doctrine, for the most part we agree,” and he sees the diversity among them as “a very beautiful thing”. I did a search, and found the following information:

“Followers of Jesus span the globe. But the global body of more than 2 billion Christians is separated into thousands of denominations. Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Lutheran, Baptist, Apostolic, Methodist—the list goes on. Estimations show there are more than 200 Christian denominations in the U.S. and a staggering 45,000 globally, according to the Center for the Study of Global Christianity. So why does Christianity have so many branches?

“A cursory look shows that differences in belief, power grabs and corruption all had a part to play.” Link

There is also an interesting Wikipedia article about Christian denominations that can be seen here. So his claim that they are just “minor disagreements,” or that the diversity is a “beautiful thing” is a copout. Historically, many of those divisions came about as a result of serious, even violent disagreements; and there is nothing “beautiful” about having theological, sectarian, doctrinal, or denominational differences and disagreements. Jesus established one church, not many churches. He said, “On this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18). He did not say, “On this rock I will build my churches; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against them”. Jesus also told his disciples to be “one” (John 10:16; 17:11, 21-23). They can’t be “one” if they are split up into thousands of disagreeing churches. And they are not his true disciples if they are not “one”.

On the Separation of Church and State

 

The different roles of church and state, and the separation of the two, seems to have become a subject of some debate and discussion in Evangelical circles lately, probably motivated by the issuance of the “Frankfurt Declaration of Christian and Civil Liberties” which I had commented on in my previous post. In connection with that it seems, the Ligonier Ministries has recently put out (or reissued) an old interview on the subject with the late R.C. Sproul, which can be seen above, the transcript of which is given below (the original transcript it seems had been edited by the Ligonier folks, and parts of it was messed up; I have tried to restore it from the video as best I could, emphasis added):

“When we talk about the separation of church and state—you know all the historical questions that came from Jefferson, and the latter wasn’t in the Constitution or Declaration or anything—but it was accurate in so far as there is a division of labor that the Bible makes clear, that God ordains the church, governs the church; God also ordains the state, and He governs the state. A few years ago I was invited to speak at the inaugural prayer breakfast of the Governor of Florida. And on that occasion I said to the governor, I said, ‘Today is your ordination day, that you have been ordained by God for this position of political authority, and you will be answerable to God for how you carry out this mission.’ So we distinguish between the spheres of activity. It is not the responsibility of the church to ‘bear the sword’ [Rom. 13:4]; it is not the responsibility of the state to be giving the sacraments, and all of that. So there are different duties and tasks that are assigned between the church and the state. Unfortunately, in our culture today, the mantra of separation of state and church has come to mean something quite different, namely the separation of state from God. It is one thing to separate the church from the state; it is something else to separate the state from God. The state has declared its independence from God, and wants to have its own authority rather than to be accountable to the things of God. Now you get a question like abortion, and the church speaks out against it; and a lot of people scream about that, saying, ‘This is a violation of church and state,’ and so on; and it is an unjust intrusion of the church into the political realm. However when we speak to an issue like abortion, which is the most significant ethical issue I believe this nation has ever had to deal with, far more serious than even the diabolical problem of slavery. But in this case, we are not asking the state to be the church; we are asking the state to be the state, because the state’s primary raison d’être, its primary reason for existence in its original creation by God, primarily is to maintain, protect, and honor the sanctity of human life; and when the state fails to do that, it fails to do its task before God. Now again, in the Scriptures, we see even in Old Testament, where there was a theonomy there, a theocratic state, that the prophets from time to time had to call the kings to task. And in the New Testament, you see John the Baptist being critical of Herod for his illicit marriage, and that is why he was killed and so on. So the church, though it is not supposed to be the state, always has, in my opinion, a responsibility to offer what we call ‘prophetic criticism’ to the state when the state becomes quote, as Oscar Cullmann once indicated, ‘demonized’.”

That is his explanation of the concept of the “separation of church and state”. But that definition is somewhat skewed. It is a distorted Calvinism-inspired definition. The concept of the separation of church and state, as outlined in the Constitution, is purely and strictly a legal issue or concept, not a moral or ethical one. It is defined in the First Amendment as follows (emphasis added):

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It prohibits any kind of government interference in religion, period. It is not about government promoting good religion, and demoting bad religion. It prohibits any kind of government interference in religion. And it is strictly a legal issue. It simply defines freedom of religion. It has nothing to do with ethics or morals. It means that if somebody wants to make a religion worshiping Satan (and they do, there is something called the Church of Satan), they have the freedom and right to do so. The Constitution guarantees them that right. That is the true definition of the separation of church and state. It has nothing to do with the rights and wrongs of a religion. That is the true meaning and definition of the separation of church and state.

Now this does not mean that the government should not be moral or ethical, or that it should not make good laws promoting righteous principles. Of course it should. Neither does it mean that churches and other institutions should not act to advise, lobby, or encourage governments to act righteously in those ways. Of course they should. But that is a separate issue from the “freedom of religion,” or the “separation of church and state”. What will promote a “righteous government,” in a democratic society especially, is the righteousness of the people; because a righteous people or nation, will elect a righteous government. All of that, however, is entirely a separate issue from the freedom of religion. In a truly democratic and free society, the freedom of religion is absolutely paramount. It is sacrosanct. If some people want to make a religion for themselves worshiping a tree, a stone, or the devil, they have the freedom and rights to do so. The government has no right to interfere. That is the true meaning of the separation of church and state. It is about the freedom of worship, not the “division of labor,” as R.C. Sproul has tried to define it.

On The Frankfurt Declaration of Christian and Civil Liberties

 

A very strange and mysterious statement was put out by the Reformed and Evangelical community recently titled: “The Frankfurt Declaration of Christian and Civil Liberties,” which can be seen here. I say “strange and mysterious” because no names of authors, or of a committee which drafted it, nor even a date of its composition was provided. It is a relatively short statement of about 2,000 words, consisting of a brief introduction, followed by 5 articles of affirmation and denial, whose aim is to warn and safeguard against the abuse of government authority, and the rise of totalitarianism and oppressive regimes in the West. That is what is stated as its objective in the brief introduction to it, which is as follows:

“In the course of human events, it sometimes becomes necessary for people of good faith to speak out against the abuse of power. This should be done only after serious and prayerful deliberation, and even then, in an attitude of humility and with respect for the authorities that have been established by God. Such protest should be expressed in the hope that civil authorities who are found to be eroding rights and liberties may yet fulfill their responsibility as their rightful guardians.

“A few concerned pastors from different continents, moved by an emergent totalitarianism of the State over all realms of society, and particularly the Church, and the disregard of Godgiven and constitutionally guaranteed rights during the Covid crisis, joined in common cause to craft a solemn declaration, which seeks to address these threats with the timeless truths of God’s Word. The following affirmations and denials, derived from biblical principles, we put forth for consideration by all Christians and relevant authorities, in the hope that this document will give light and strength for faithful witness to Jesus Christ in our day.”

But it has no “signature list” of those who drafted it; and it doesn’t tell us anywhere who those “concerned pastors from different continents” are, how they came together, where they met, or why Frankfurt was chosen as the place of their convention rather than London, Paris, Washington, or somewhere else. It was initially signed online by around 50 prominent Evangelical pastors and preachers, including John MacArthur; and my guess is that they are the ones who initially instigated it. But why they would want to call it the “Frankfurt Declaration,” or why the identity of its original authors are not revealed, is a mystery that remains yet to be resolved!

Joking aside, however, it is a statement that, on the whole I am inclined to sympathize with, although it is possible to find some theological flaws in it as well, which is not unexpected, given that it was drafted mainly by Evangelical, Reformed, and Calvinistic theologians. For example in the second article it says the following:

“… Since man has fallen into sin, we further affirm that all his thoughts, deductions, and institutions contain degrees of corruption which tend to distort, manipulate, or suppress the truth.

“We therefore deny that human governments are morally and ideologically neutral, and always know or seek what is good for their citizens, and that their narrative should be unconditionally trusted. …”

If mankind are naturally so “depraved” that they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong, good and evil etc., then what is the point of lecturing them about all of this anyway, or having any expectations from them that are different? That would be a waste of time and a pointless exercise. The statement can only make sense if the Calvinistic doctrine of “Total Depravity” is not true. At the start of Article 4 it also says:

“We affirm that all earthly authorities derive their authority (‘the right to be obeyed’) from God, who is over all and to whom all must give account.”

In a broad sense that would be a true statement; but in a more immediate sense, in democratic societies like the US, they derive their right to govern by the voice of the people, who have elected them, and also have the power to depose them. So the primary responsibility doesn’t rest with the “government,” but with the electorate who have appointed them.

Another puzzling thing about this declaration is that it focuses a lot on defending democracy and freedom, especially religious freedom, which John MacArthur has repeatedly made clear in what he has said that he is against. Here are some quotes (emphasis added):

“Such protest should be expressed in the hope that civil authorities who are found to be eroding rights and liberties may yet fulfill their responsibility as their rightful guardians.

“…moved by an emergent totalitarianism of the State over all realms of society, and particularly the Church, and the disregard of Godgiven and constitutionally guaranteed rights during the Covid crisis, …” (Introduction)

“We therefore deny totalitarian ideologies of governments which do not recognize the boundaries of their authority and usurp the authority delegated by God to the Church or the family. In particular, we reject the tendency of governments to centralize beliefs and conduct for their citizens by creating an authoritarian society in which the State is absolute. Such totalitarianism and statism is built upon beliefs that have fundamentally redefined good and evil and the nature of human beings, and are contrary to the divine order of things. The effect of such beliefs is to enslave individual and religious freedoms, and engender an ideological intolerance which seeks to silence, cancel, and re-educate those who disagree.” (Article 4)

“It appears that the world may well be entering a time of testing, not only for the Church, but for everyone who believes in freedom and who opposes tyranny.” (last paragraph)

Do those rights and privileges belong equally to Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc.? How come? I thought John MacArthur was opposed to all of that kind of stuff. That is what he has said nearly every time that he has spoken on the subject. Has he now changed his mind? If so, that is a good sign! Maybe he has been persuaded by my criticisms of his views on those subjects!

Anyways in general, I am sympathetic to the views and sentiments expressed in the declaration, and would support it, although I am not sure whether I would want to “sign” it, because of the flaws that are in it; the most serious of which is that the true identity of those who composed it, the venue in which it was drawn up, the date of its composition, and the circumstances that led to it etc. are mysteriously kept secret, which is a very serious defect of the enterprise from my point of view. Why is there so much secrecy about it if they have nothing to hide? It almost seems like those who composed it are embarrassed by it, and don’t want their identity to be made known, which is a very serious defect. If they don’t have enough confidence in their own project to make their identity known, there is little reason that anybody else should. It has, however, now attracted over 4,000 signatories, which is a good thing, because as I said, I am in general sympathetic to its sentiments.

John MacArthur Getting Desperate!

 

It looks like John MacArthur is getting desperate! He has now started attacking the Book of Mormon. In the above sermon, at around 39:30 minutes into the video, he says the following:

“The Book of Mormon, quote from 2 Nephi 2: ‘Adam fell that men might have joy.’ Really? ‘Adam fell that men might have joy’? I don’t think so. And by the way, the Book of Mormon, Alma chapter 7 verse 10 says, Jesus would be born in Jerusalem. Nice try. He was born in Bethlehem.”

(Details of the sermon as well as written transcript can be found here.) Both of those passages referenced from the Book of Mormon are misquoted and misrepresented. In the first reference, the full context of the passage is as follows:

2 Nephi 2:

22 And now behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden; and all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end.

23 And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence; having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin.

24 But behold, all things have been done in the wisdom of him who knoweth all things.

25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are that they might have joy.

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall, they have become free forever, knowing good from evil, to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given.

That is what the passage actually does say. Firstly, it says that “Adam fell that man might be,” which is not the same as what he is falsely misquoting it to be saying. What that means is that before the Fall, Adam and Eve could not have had children, as explained in the previous two verses. It doesn’t give a reason for it. It doesn’t explain why. But that is what it is saying. Interestingly, the Old Testament account also indirectly confirms this. Adam and Eve started having children only after the Fall. It is unlikely that the Fall took place on the first day that they were created. They must have lived together in the garden for some time, before they were tempted and fell. But we have no record of them having children until after the Fall. We don’t know why; it doesn’t explain the reasons; but that apparently was the case. In the second part, when it says that “men are that they might have joy,” it is not talking about the Fall at all. What that is saying is that the purpose of man’s creation is that they might be happy; and they will be, provided that they obey the will of God. God didn’t create mankind in order that they might be miserable (as in the heresy of Calvinism that he believes in). God wants all mankind to be happy; and they will be provided that they do what God says. But the choice is theirs to go either way. He is deliberately misquoting and misrepresenting the Book of Mormon to make it look bad. The same applies to his quote from Alma chapter 7, which is as follows:

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

That of course is a very common criticism of the Book of Mormon, which I had previously discussed here. That verse is also misquoted and given out of context. Evidently he hasn’t read the Book of Mormon properly, to understand it in its proper historical context. In the Book of Mormon, the expression “land of Jerusalem” is used repeatedly and consistently by the Nephites to refer to that region of the world where their ancestors had come from, meaning the entire Palestinian territories. The Nephites lived on an entirely different continent, and had no direct contact with, or acquaintance of the region of the world where their ancestors had come from; and the phrase, “land of Jerusalem” had become a kind of idiomatic expression among them to refer to that region of the world where their ancestors came from, meaning the whole of the Palestinian lands. It is not a reference to the “city” of Jerusalem as such. Here are some examples (punctuation revised):

1 Nephi 18:

24 And it came to pass that we did begin to till the earth, and we began to plant seeds; yea, we did put all our seeds into the earth, which we had brought from the land of Jerusalem. And it came to pass that they did grow exceedingly; wherefore we were blessed in abundance.

2 Nephi 1:

1 And now it came to pass, that after I Nephi had made an end of teaching my brethren, our father Lehi also spake many things unto them, and rehearsed unto them how great things the Lord had done for them, in bringing them out of the land of Jerusalem.

2 Nephi 1:

3 And he also spake unto them concerning the land of promise, which they had obtained—how merciful the Lord had been in warning us that we should flee out of the land of Jerusalem.

Jacob 2:

25 Wherefore thus saith the Lord: I have led this people forth out of the land of Jerusalem by the power of mine arm, that I might raise up unto me a righteous branch from the fruit of the loins of Joseph.

Mosiah 1:

11 And moreover, I shall give this people a name, that thereby they may be distinguished above all the people which the Lord God hath brought out of the land of Jerusalem; and this I do because they have been a diligent people in keeping the commandments of the Lord.

Mosiah 7:

20 And again, that same God has brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem, and has kept and preserved his people even until now; and behold, it is because of our iniquities and abominations that he has brought us into bondage.

Alma 7:

10 And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.

Alma 10:

3 And Aminadi was a descendant of Nephi, who was the son of Lehi, who came out of the land of Jerusalem, who was a descendant of Manasseh, who was the son of Joseph, who was sold into Egypt by the hands of his brethren.

Alma 36:

29 Yea, and he has also brought our fathers out of the land of Jerusalem; and he has also, by his everlasting power, delivered them out of bondage and captivity from time to time, even down to the present day. …

Helaman 16:

19 Yea, why will he [Jesus] not show himself in this land, as well as in the land of Jerusalem?

3 Nephi 16:

1 And verily, verily I say unto you, that I [Jesus] have other sheep which are not of this land, neither of the land of Jerusalem, neither in any parts of that land round about, whither I have been to minister.

Mormon 3:

18 Yea, behold, I write unto all the ends of the earth; yea unto you, twelve tribes of Israel, who shall be judged according to your works by the twelve [Apostles] whom Jesus chose to be his disciples in the land of Jerusalem.

Note especially the last quote, where it says that the Twelve Apostles of Jesus were chosen in the land of Jerusalem, thus making it clear that that expression is used idiomatically to refer to the whole of that part of the world where their ancestors had come from, meaning the whole of Palestinian territories, not the actual city of Jerusalem as such. Sometimes the phrase, “land of” is omitted, and only the word “Jerusalem,” or “at Jerusalem” is used to refer to the same thing, as in these verses:

2 Nephi 9:

5 Yea, I know that ye know that in the body he shall show himself unto those at Jerusalem, from whence we came; for it is expedient that it should be among them; for it behooveth the great Creator, that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him.

2 Nephi 10:

5 But because of priestcrafts and iniquities, they at Jerusalem will stiffen their necks against him [Jesus], that he be crucified.

Helaman 16:

18 That it is not reasonable that such a being as a Christ shall come; if so, and he be the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, as it has been spoken, why will he not show himself unto us, as well as unto them who shall be at Jerusalem?

3 Nephi 15:

14 And not at any time hath the Father given me [Jesus] commandment that I should tell it unto your brethren at Jerusalem.

3 Nephi 16:

4 And I command you that ye shall write these sayings after I am gone, that if it so be that my people at Jerusalem, they who have seen me and been with me in my ministry, do not ask the Father in my name, that they may receive a knowledge of you by the Holy Ghost, …

3 Nephi 17:

8 For I perceive that ye desire that I should show unto you what I have done unto your brethren at Jerusalem; for I see that your faith is sufficient that I should heal you.

4 Nephi 1:

31 Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all these miracles, the people did harden their hearts, and did seek to kill them, even as the Jews at Jerusalem sought to kill Jesus, according to his word.

3 Nephi 21:

26 And then shall the work of the Father commence at that day, even when this gospel shall be preached among the remnant of this people. Verily I say unto you, at that day shall the work of the Father commence among all the dispersed of my people; yea, even the tribes which have been lost, which the Father hath led away out of Jerusalem.

The last quote in this list is particularly revealing. It depicts all of the “Lost Tribes of Israel” as having been led away out of Jerusalem, thus making it clear beyond any dispute that by that term is meant the whole of the Palestinian lands, not just the city of Jerusalem as such. Thus, far from casting doubt on the truth of the Book of Mormon, this extraordinary internal consistency is further evidence of its truth.

So the bottom line is that John MacArthur seems desperate to find fault with the Book of Mormon; and he is resorting to misquotation and misrepresentation to do it, because he has no other way. The Book of Mormon is a 500 page book, claiming to be an ancient book of scripture on a par with the Bible—and that is the best that he can do to find fault with it! That won’t work. The Book of Mormon is indeed true ancient scripture like the Bible, no difference. Anybody trying to attack the Book of Mormon, it will only backfire on them. For him to try to attack the Book of Mormon, is like a fly trying to attack an elephant. It has no effect on the Book of Mormon.

_____________

P. S.

After posting the above, I have given more thought to the question of why Adam and Eve could not have had children until after the Fall; and it has occurred to me that prior to the Fall, there was no death (of man or beast); death came only after the Fall. If they had been able to have children before the Fall, their children would have also been immortal, and pretty soon the earth would have run out of space to contain all its inhabitants, of both men and beasts.