Pastor Jeff and LDS Discuss the Nature of God

 

Pastor Jeff of Hello Saints has just put out a short video in which he quotes and discusses a segment from a much longer interview he had with an LDS podcaster by the name of Jacob Hansen, of Thoughtful Faith channel. I watched both videos, the original one, as well as the shorter segment quoted above; and I found that I had more problems with what the LDS guy was saying, than what the Evangelical guy was saying. In the videos he expresses a lot of speculative opinions which he then equates with LDS beliefs and doctrines, which I had difficulty relating to. He keeps saying in the videos that “We believe” this, and “We believe” that, most of which I for one would not agree with. So let’s get into the video to see what we can find. Pastor Jeff commences the video by giving a very brief quote from Jacob Hansen as follows:

“And I guess this is where I kind of struggle a little bit with this, and I think a lot of Latter-day Saints too. We believe in Eternal Progression. Is a being all-powerful if they can’t change their own nature?”

I have serious issues with that right from the start. He has expressed two doctrines in there both of which are incorrect, and not sound, LDS doctrine. The first is the doctrine of “Eternal Progression”. This doctrine was originally proposed and enunciated by Brigham Young, meaning that God is constantly “progressing,” by which he meant that God was constantly increasing in knowledge, wisdom, intelligence, power, ability, influence etc.*, which of course is incorrect and has no scriptural basis—either in modern LDS scripture or in the Bible. Scripture teaches that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, and is perfect in all of his attributes. He has all power, all wisdom, and all knowledge. He is not getting any wiser, smarter, more powerful, or learning anything new. That is the true LDS doctrine as expressed within the standard works—which is the official, authoritative source of Church doctrine. The second is what he calls God being able to “change his own nature,” which again of course is entirely incorrect, unscriptural, and unjustified on all accounts. How is God able to “change his own nature”? He can make himself taller, more handsome? He can make himself wiser, smarter, more intelligent? He can make himself more or less divine? He can make himself cisgender or transgender?! How is God able to “change his own nature”? Scripture teaches that God is immutable and unchangeable. He is “the same yesterday, today, and forever”. He does not change. See scripture references given below. Pastor Jeff then continues with his own comments as follows:

“Hello Saints, my name is Jeff. I am a pastor exploring everything I can about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; and for the past year, it has been a little bit of a solo journey. I mean, I have talked to Latter-day Saints here and there; but for the most part, I have been exploring on my own; and I have reached a point with the channel that I feel that it would be better if I would explore alongside Latter-day Saints from time to time. So I wanted to share with you a conversation I had recently on Thoughtful Faith, which is a Latter-day Saint YouTube channel run by a gentleman named Jacob Hansen. You might know who he is. And we had an extensive conversation about interfaith dialogue, about the relationship between Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals, and we even got into some pretty deep doctrinal and theological conversation. And I wanted to share an excerpt of this conversation with you, to show why I am wanting to have more conversations with Latter-day Saints. You will see how we are talking about some pretty deep things, as it pertains to the nature of God; but how that dialogue then leads us to have a really important conversation about the importance of who Jesus is, and what he came to do. A link to the entire conversation is below in the description. But let’s jump into this conversation, just to give you a little taste of the type of dialogue I am hoping to continue to have here on Hello Saints, check it out.”

Like I said, I watched the longer video, and I found that I had more issues with comments made by the LDS guy than by the Evangelical one. Then comes the next quote from Jacob Hansen as follows (image copied from the video, click to enlarge):

“I wanted to dig into this idea of–again if you–when you come from this view:

There is a big question mark that comes in that says, well, what is the nature of this hyper-reality, of this ‘otherly realm’? And what does it mean to even say that there is a ‘realm’ there at all?”

My answer to that is, Show me one scripture that talks about a “hyper-reality” or “otherly realm,” and I will take him seriously. He is engaging in a great deal of hypothetical speculation. That is not how the doctrine of the Church is derived, expressed, defined, or arrived at. Then Jacob continues as follows:

“And you said something interesting that, or that God has certain limitations based on his own nature, right? And we simply take that maybe a step further, to say that God exists within a hyper-reality, but that that hyper-reality is governed by law, and that that hyper-reality was not created by God. It is the realm that has always existed, always will exist, and exists of necessity, and therefore in that realm of the hyper-reality, there are what we would call in Latter-day Saint parlance, eternal law; and that God himself even is subject to the eternal nature of reality itself, or what we would call, eternal law. He simply has mastered the highest level of being within that hyper-reality, and he is trying to bring us into that higher level of being, and our conception of the kingdoms of glory is basically how far do you, within the hyper-reality space, like what sort of a life are you going to have in that reality.”

Again, he engages in a great deal of hypothetical speculation which have no scriptural basis, and therefore cannot be identified as genuine LDS doctrine; whereas Pastor Jeff’s theological comments have scriptural basis. Scripture indeed teaches that God “cannot lie”. But there is no scriptural basis for what he calls a “hyper-reality”. There is no scriptural basis for what he calls “eternal law”—independent of the existence of God. All laws are made and determined by God. There is no “law” independent of, or outside of the realm of the existence of God. Then Jeff continues with his own comments as follows:

“Yeah, but that is definitely a diverging distinction to how we view the nature of God. So what we would say is, ‘In the beginning God …’ What does that even mean? Again, we are placing that in a realm of mystery that we can’t fully understand, or that we can’t comprehend, I should say. But we don’t think that God … we believe in the aseity of Christ; the independence of, or the aseity of God; the independence—he is not dependent or subject to anything. … So in his holiness, and in his infinite vastness—though how that existence looked before he created the earth or the universe—what does ‘before’ even mean to a God who is outside of time, okay? So again, we get into these really mysterious places based on our cognitive abilities. But we don’t believe that there is a standard of holiness that God has attained to, or is subject to. We believe that he is the standard.”

He has got that mostly right, except for the last bit. Scripture commands us to be holy, as God is holy (Lev. 11:44-45; 1 Peter 1:15-16). That means that there is a standard of holiness that God adheres to, and expects us to adhere to. It is the same standard for both. But there is a standard, otherwise God could not command us to be holy as he is holy. This does not mean that there is a standard of holiness that exists independent of God, or outside of the existence of God. God himself is the author of that standard. But once he has established that standard, he adheres to it himself, and does not deviate from it. In the same way that God “cannot lie,” likewise he cannot violate the standard of holiness that himself has established. To this then Jacob replies:

“He defines it, … he is the standard by which holiness is defined. His nature is that which we call holy.”

Not quite. There is a standard, otherwise God could not command us to be “holy as he is holy”—except that God himself is the author of that standard. It is not a standard that somehow exists independent of God. Jeff then continues:

“And the same thing goes for love, like there is not an idea of love that just so happens to exist out there. God is love; he is the one that by his very nature—through his character, who he is—he is the one that defines the reality of that. In a certain sense, his very existence is almost speaking all of this into existence for us. So that is a really important one because, God being independent, subject to nothing or no one, whether it be a higher being or even a higher law. We believe that he is the highest; and there is nothing higher, there is no one higher. He is Lord of lords Kings of … he is above all. So yeah, that would be a differing view in the nature of God; because we don’t think that when God Says, ‘I Am,’ we don’t see a God who is ‘becoming,’ we see a God who is ‘being;’ you know we are always ‘becoming;’ where[as] he ‘is,’ he is the ‘I am’.”

He has got that mostly right—and Jacob has got it wrong! God is indeed immutable and unchangeable. He is not changing, or “becoming” anything other than what he already is. Then Jacob continues as follows:

“But this, and I guess this is where I kind of struggle a little bit with this, and I think a lot of Latter-day Saints too, is that if God is not ‘becoming’—because we definitely believe that God is ‘becoming,’ we believe in Eternal Progression, that his glory can grow beyond where it is, and that makes him not static … is that it seems as though if he cannot change his nature, if God can’t alter what he is, then God in some sense … is a being all-powerful if they can’t change their own nature? Is that fair … you know, because I would … look at it and they say if God is all-powerful, then he must be free, as the Bible says, to do as he pleases. But if he has a nature that cannot change, well then, he is bound by that nature, and is in the ultimate sense not free.”

That is completely erroneous theology of course, for the reasons previously explained. The only additional thing to be noted here is that he is now redefining “Eternal Progression”. Eternal Progression does not mean that God is continuingly “adding to his own glory”. Scripture does indeed teach that God is continually “glorifying” himself by the works that he does. But that is not the same as “Eternal Progression,” as understood by those who initially came up with that idea in the first place. God is not undergoing any “change,” or “changing his own nature” by continually “glorifying” himself, as taught in scripture. Scripture teaches that we “glorify God” by doing good works (Matt. 5:16). That does not mean that we are “changing God’s nature” by doing good, and glorifying God. Then Jeff continues as follows:

“Here is how I would challenge that, I will challenge it with a word picture: That is the difference between viewing God’s ability to change—comparing El Capitan to the ocean; and here is what I mean by that: If I tried to change El Capitan, you know this giant wall of granite in Yosemite—I can’t. These are locked atoms that are not going as Granite, right? I can’t change that. That is not how I believe the Bible teaches God. He is not chiseled in granite, this sort of unchanging wall. He is more like the ocean. If you dove into the ocean, you are displacing within that water, where water once was; but there is no less water. Is God changing in that word picture? No, he is allowing himself to be affected, and he is making space for other beings. But it is not impacting the reality of that existence as an ocean.”

He is right to challenge it, but he is not going about it the best way. The right way to challenge it is to quote scripture which teaches the unchangeable nature of God (punctuation in LDS scripture quotes revised):

Psalm 102:

27 But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end.

Malachi 3:

6 For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.

Hebrews 1:

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

Hebrews 13:

8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

James 1:

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

Mormon 9:

9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever; and in him there is no variableness, neither shadow of changing?

10 And now, if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not a God of miracles.

• • •

19 And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles, and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so, he would cease to be God. And he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.

Doctrine and Covenants 3:

2 For God doth not walk in crooked paths, neither doth he turn to the right hand nor to the left, neither doth he vary from that which he hath said; therefore his paths are straight, and his course is one eternal round.

Doctrine and Covenants 20:

12 Thereby showing that he is the same God yesterday, today, and forever. Amen.

• • •

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 35:

1 Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round; the same today, as yesterday, and forever.

The rest of the discussion goes into more hypothetical speculations about this mysterious supposed “hyper-reality,” and non-existent “eternal law” (independent of God), concluding with an uneasy compromise about Jesus which I will skip. What Jacob Hansen needs to do is to make a serious study of the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith, before engaging in theological discussions with non-LDS Christians. He is embarrassing LDS with his wild hypothetical speculations. He also never quotes scripture to support his doctrinal statements—from which the theology and doctrine of the Church is ultimately derived. Hopefully the Church will recanonize the Lectures on Faith one of these days, which will go a long way to equip Latter-day Saints to engage in serious theological discussions with non-LDS.

____________

*That is the information that I initially found when I searched for it online. But since then I have been doing more research into it, and I found that although Brigham Young probably introduced the concept of “eternal progression” first (and talked about it most often), he always uses it with regard to the “progress” of man, rather than the “progress” of God (although it could be argued that the concept was susceptible to that kind of interpretation). Most of the early Church leaders who employed the concept also used it in the same sense. The Journal of Discourses is my source of information for this. The earliest reference I could find to “eternal progression” being applied to God himself was by Elder Wilford Woodruff, in a talk given in the Tabernacle on December 6, 1857 (J.D. Vol. 6), as follows (emphasis added):

“If there was a point where man in his progression could not proceed any further, the very idea would throw a gloom over every intelligent and reflecting mind. God himself is increasing and progressing in knowledge, power, and dominion, and will do so, worlds without end. It is just so with us. We are in a probation, which is a school of experience.”

But the idea is doctrinally and theologically unsound. God is continually “glorifying” himself by the works that he does. But that is not the same as “progressing” in any sense of the term, such as in knowledge, wisdom, power etc. Church leaders are not infallible. They are liable to make mistakes; and occasionally in the past they have. In those days people tended to speculate about Church doctrine a lot more than they do nowadays.

Pastor Jeff on the Book of Mormon–Part IV

 

Pastor Jeff has put out his latest video commenting on the Book of Mormon, in which he discusses the book of Jacob, which is one of the shorter books, containing only 7 chapters. Skipping his initial introductory remarks, at around 4:40 minutes into the video he says the following:

“Now the Nephites are starting to devolve into unrighteousness; and in chapter 1:15 something really interesting stuck out to me, and that is, that the Nephites are being called out for indulging in all kinds of wicked practices; and one in particular that is called out is desiring many wives and concubines. … and there again in chapter 2 verses 23 through 35 there is a clear condemnation of polygamy; and it is called wicked, and it is called an abomination, it is called whoredom; and I think you can get why this is sticking out to me, because as far as I understood, polygamy has been a significant part of the heritage of Latter-day Saint belief and practice at least in America over the past 180 years. And I know that there is a little bit of debate as to whether or not Joseph Smith is the one who instituted it. There is some Latter-day Saints that I have talked to that say, he did toward the end of his life; and others that say that he didn’t; it was actually Brigham Young, but who retroactively made it look like it came from Joseph Smith. Either way, I think it is pretty well known that polygamy was very much interwoven into Latter-day Saint doctrine, and theology, and practice. So this is just sticking out at me, as to how this is being condemned, and essentially being called sin; and that even gets us into chapter three, where the the Nephites are just continuing to descend into this place of unrighteousness; and again in verse 5 of chapter 3, talking about the the commandment of the Lord is that one man needs to be married to one wife, and monogamous families will be blessed, and obedient children will be blessed. So there is a big emphasis on the family; and again this just really stuck out to me, because I wasn’t quite understanding how such a condemnation of polygamy matches up with that practice that existed in the Latter-day Saint Church in America for so many years.”

Again, he has not read the text carefully enough. He has overlooked Jacob 2:30 for example: “For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people [i.e. to practice polygamy]; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things.” What is being condemned in the book of Jacob is the abuse of polygamy, not the mere practice of polygamy as such. Polygamy (like monogamy) can be abused. The abuse of any kind of marriage relationship is condemned by God, be it polygamy or monogamy. David and Solomon are condemned in the text for their practice of polygamy because they abused the practice. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and many others are not condemned, because they didn’t abuse the practice. It is the abuse of polygamy that is being condemned in the Book of Jacob, not the practice of polygamy when commanded and approved by God. As far as the practice of polygamy by Joseph Smith and in the early Church history is concerned, he has got that all badly wrong and mixed up as well, because he is getting his information from the wrong sources. The practice of polygamy in the early history of the Church was revealed by God, as recorded in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants. It is a long section that needs to be read carefully. It talks about two concepts that are sometimes conflated, and need to be distinguished. The first is the eternity of the marriage covenant, and the second is plural marriage, or polygamy. It is the first that is mandatory for exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God, not the second. It is eternal marriage that is a requirement for exaltation, not how many wives you have got. And eternal marriage is a sacrament that requires proper priesthood authority to be performed, and which exists only within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Polygamy is permitted under the celestial law, but is optional, and is not a requirement for exaltation. Now if you deny the doctrine after it has been revealed by God, that is a separate issue, and you come under condemnation for denying the truth of God. But the practice of polygamy is not mandatory for obtaining exaltation in the celestial kingdom of God—only eternal marriage is. Then he continues on the same theme as follows:

“And if you don’t mind, I would actually like to share with you a little bit of the dialogue that I shared with some Latter-day Saints on this topic, as I was asking some Latter-day Saints in the comments section of some of my videos, how they reconcile this? And one comment in particular that stuck out to me pertaining to polygamy, was an individual that was explaining that, ‘as a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I would like to clarify that polygamy was commanded by God to you Joseph Smith, later on the Lord suspended it, by the Lord again; the Lord authorizes it, and he suspends it.’ And I think this just kind of points out a difference that exists with Latter-day Saint belief, as opposed to mainstream Christianity; and that is within God’s holiness. You are not going to see him from our vantage point, and biblically speaking, calling something sinful, and calling it wicked, calling it abominable, and suspending it, and telling people they should not involve themselves in it, only to then reinstitute something that he previously had said was sinful. If it is sinful, that means that it is not of God. And I think that is where we would see a pretty significant difference between how a Protestant views what God calls sin, versus what he calls righteousness, and either allows or actually commands people to do. And I know it might seem like that I am kind of picking on the idea of polygamy, but really in the first three chapters of Jacob, when talking about the unrighteousness of the Nephites, polygamy really was central, or taking many wives. So that is a reason why I am kind of zeroing in on that. And I have to say, this is probably one of the areas that is looking very different, just when it comes to the nature of God, and how he institutes or prohibits things; how I see this playing out in the Book of Mormon, versus the ministry of Joseph Smith.”

Again, his problem is that he is not reading it carefully enough, and he is also not familiar with the historical background to the practice of polygamy in the early history of the Church; and he is also not understanding correctly the information he has received from faithful Church members. To cut a long story short: (1) The Book of Mormon condemns only the abuse of polygamy, not the practice of polygamy when commanded and approved by God, see Jacob 2:30 quoted above. (2) In the early history of the Church, in the days of Joseph Smith, the practice of polygamy was commanded and approved by God, as revealed in section 132 of the Doctrine and Covenants referenced above. That revelation is still doctrinally valid and in force. It has not been revoked. (3) Later on in the history of the Church, polygamy was made illegal by the US government in 1882 (fifty years after the Church was organized), as a result of which the practice of polygamy was discontinued in the Church in order to comply with the law, as we believe in obeying the law of the land (see Articles of Faith). That does not mean that practicing polygamy was declared inherently sinful. The doctrine is still theologically and doctrinally valid when approved by God, as taught in D&C 132. But the practice was discontinued to comply with the law, as we believe in obeying the law. The revelation legitimizing polygamy has not been revoked. It is still part of the canonized scriptures of the Church, meaning that it is still doctrinally valid. But the practice has been discontinued in order to comply with the law. Practicing polygamy is not a requirement for salvation. You don’t have to have more than one wife in order to be saved. So the doctrine itself is still valid. Only the practice has been discontinued in order to comply with the Law.

Then he spends some time again discussing the Lamanites and the skin color issue etc., which I had previously discussed in an earlier reply to him (Part III), and therefore need not be repeated again here. I will only repeat that the change of skin color of the Lamanites was not a “race” issue. It did not make them “racially inferior” to the Nephites. And they obtained a promise that when they repented and became righteous, the curse would be lifted, which it was later in their history.

Moving on, he continues to express surprise at the continued presence of what he calls “New Testament language” in the book of Jacob, by which he means the continued reference to the future coming, ministry, atonement, and redemption of Jesus Christ; and that salvation exists in and through him only, and in no other way. He would be even more surprised to find out that that is a common theme that runs throughout the rest of the Book of Mormon, not just in the bits that he has been reading so far. He has overlooked the following verses, which give the explanation for his observation (punctuation revised):

Jacob 1:

6 And we also had many revelations, and the spirit of much prophecy; wherefore we knew of Christ, and his kingdom which should come.

Jacob 4:

4 For, for this intent have we written these things, that they may know that we knew of Christ, and we had a hope of his glory many hundred years before his coming; and not only we ourselves had a hope of his glory, but also all the holy prophets which were before us.

5 Behold, they believed in Christ, and worshiped the Father in his name; and also we worship the Father in his name. And for this intent we keep the law of Moses, it pointing our souls to him; and for this cause it is sanctified unto us for righteousness, even as it was accounted unto Abraham in the wilderness, to be obedient unto the commands of God in offering up his son Isaac, which is a similitude of God and his Only Begotten Son.

6 Wherefore we search the prophets, and we have many revelations, and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

• • •

12 And now beloved, marvel not that I tell you these things; for why not speak of the atonement of Christ, and attain to a perfect knowledge of him, as to attain to the knowledge of a resurrection and the world to come?

13 Behold my brethren, he that prophesieth, let him prophesy to the understanding of men; for the Spirit speaketh the truth, and lieth not. Wherefore it speaketh of things as they really are, and of things as they really will be; wherefore these things are manifested unto us plainly, for the salvation of our souls. But behold, we are not witnesses alone in these things; for God also spake them unto prophets of old.

The truth is that all the Old Testament prophets had a knowledge of Christ and his future ministry. The reason why we don’t have it in our current Bible is because the Bible as we now have it is not complete. A lot has gone missing from it. The prophet Zenos that Jacob is quoting from for example is actually an Old Testament prophet, whose writings existed in the copy of the Old Testament (known as the Brass Plates) that they possessed, but which no longer exist in our current Bible.

Then he goes into a discussion of the parable of the “olive tree” given by the prophet Zenos, and which Jacob quotes in chapter 5 of his book. This parable is a discussion of God’s dealings with the house of Israel vis-à-vis the Gentiles. The tame olive tree represents the house of Israel, whereas the wild olive trees represent the Gentiles. It depicts how God is able, by taking the gospel back and forth between the Gentiles and the Jews, to save and bring into his kingdom genuine converts from both groups. The Book of Mormon teaches that Lehi and his family were not the only branch of the house of Israel who were separated from the main body at Jerusalem, and settled in distant lands, where they developed as independent communities; there were many more; and their records have been preserved, and will be brought to light at some point by the Lord. The parable of the olive tree is an allegorical depiction of that. There is lots more of great doctrine and theology contained in the Book of Jacob of course, which cannot all be discussed here, of which the following verses are a few additional examples (punctuation revised):

Jacob 2:

18 But before ye seek for riches, seek ye for the kingdom of God.

19 And after ye have obtained a hope in Christ, ye shall obtain riches if ye seek them; and ye will seek them for the intent to do good—to clothe the naked, and to feed the hungry, and to liberate the captive, and administer relief to the sick and the afflicted.

Jacob 3:

1 But behold, I Jacob would speak unto you that are pure in heart: Look unto God with firmness of mind, and pray unto him with exceeding faith; and he will console you in your afflictions, and he will plead your cause, and send down justice upon those who seek your destruction.

2 O all ye that are pure in heart, lift up your heads and receive the pleasing word of God, and feast upon his love; for ye may, if your minds are firm, forever.

12-year Old Destroys Concept of 15-minute City!

 

There have been mass protests and demonstrations in Oxford against the 15-minute City lockdowns. The above video is a short clip which I found on Twitter. The original video is three hours long, featuring peaceful protests, and several people speaking at the event, which can be seen here. Lots of people are now publicly discussing and talking about it. A Twitter search for “the 15 minute city Oxford” will produce many more interesting results. As I had said before, they won’t be able to pull this thing off in the UK. The people of the UK are far too independent-minded to allow this kind of thing to take place in their communities. There will be mass protests, parliament will be stormed, and city councils trashed, rather than allow this kind thing to take hold in the UK.

The Church of England Going Woke!

 

The world is going crazy, and Christians are marching along with it! However, I am even more concerned about what the other guy mentioned about what is happening in schools—and he was quickly sidelined. If the Church of England wants to march down into the abyss, that is their choice. But destroying the lives of innocent children who have no choice but to trust and believe their adult teachers, supervisors, and parents, is a crime of astronomical proportions. It will bring down upon nations the judgements of God, and the calamities foretold by the ancient prophets.

More videos are coming out related to this topic since I posted the above, which I will link to below as I come across them:

https://youtu.be/WWqdJ5zxLt4 https://youtu.be/8dMbOdVLuvs

https://youtu.be/XEzlyFT0J3U

https://youtu.be/-3g6Ln3izvU

https://youtu.be/YFcJkKsNGS4

https://youtu.be/mR5k4ayi-Bg

.

Another Good Analysis of Climate Change Hoax!

 

Everybody is now waking up to this nonsense. Question is, whether it will gather enough momentum in time to put an end to the madness before it causes irreversible harm.

Pastor Jeff on Evangelicals versus LDS!

 

In this video Pastor Jeff comments on and discusses the hostility that is sometimes displayed by some Evangelicals on the extreme wing of the movement against LDS, and seeks to strike a balance, and bring about some reconciliation between the two. In this video he identifies a number of points of doctrinal or theological differences or disagreements between the two sides, which he reckons causes the divisions between them, all of which I am not going to discuss. I will briefly comment on two points.

The first is that Joseph Smith never said that we become “gods of our own planet”. He said that those who are saved in the celestial kingdom of God are indeed deified, they become divine, they become “gods”. But he never said that they become “gods of their own planet”. That is something that was added to it by the critics. What he did say was that those who are so saved and exalted, will then inherit all that the Father has:

Doctrine and Covenants 88:

37 And he that receiveth me receiveth my Father;

38 And he that receiveth my Father receiveth my Father’s kingdom; therefore all that my Father hath shall be given unto him.

39 And this is according to the oath and covenant which belongeth to the priesthood.

40 Therefore, all those who receive the priesthood, receive this oath and covenant of my Father, which he cannot break, neither can it be moved.

Who wants to be a “god of their own planet” when they can have all that God the Father has—all the planets, stars, and galaxies in the universe that God has created? I did a search, and found the following estimation about the total number of planets in the observable universe: “With 2 trillion galaxies within our observable Universe, we can extrapolate our Universe’s planetary total. There are 10²⁵ planets that orbit stars, with some 10²⁶–10³⁰ additional starless planets” Link. That is more than 10⁸⁰ planets. Who wants to be “god of their own planet,” when they can have all the 10⁸⁰ of them that God has created?

The next point I would like to mention is that, of all the doctrinal and theological differences and disagreements between Evangelicals and Latter-day Saints that he has talked about in the video, there is one that is most important of all, that he has overlooked—and that is, the doctrine of the Apostasy. Latter-day Saints believe that the early Christian church apostatized, and lost the divine, priestly, and Apostolic authority that it originally possessed; and therefore it could no longer be led by revelation; and therefore it drifted doctrinally and theologically. And the Protestant Reformation made matters worse, not better. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is a Restoration (by a direct revelation from God) of the original and true Church Jesus Christ established on earth (not a “reformation”). That is the real reason for all the animosity and hostility of the Evangelicals (or the more extremists among them) against all things LDS.

Throughout history, whenever an established religion has apostatized, God has restored his true religion at some point by means of a new dispensation of true religion; and the false and apostate religions have always opposed and fought against that new restored religion. That has been a consistent pattern throughout history. Noah preached the true religion among the antediluvian apostate sinners for a hundred years, before their time ran out, and they were destroyed; and he finally established God’s true religion among his own family. Moses did the same thing in his time. Through him God established his true religion, to counter all the false, apostate, and pagan religions of his day. See Deuteronomy 4:5-9. And those who opposed him were likewise destroyed. And Jesus did the same kind of thing in his day. The true religion that Moses had established had apostatized by his time, and lost its legitimacy. Jesus came to counter it by establishing once again true religion. And the same thing has happened again in our time. The Christian church that Jesus established had apostatized, and lost its Apostolic authority and legitimacy, which is why it needed to be restored by means of a new dispensation of true religion in our time. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about that. It follows a consistent pattern through history. That is the real reason for all the hatred, hostility, and animosity of extremist Evangelicals against all things LDS. It is because they are adherents of a false, apostate religion which historically have always hated, persecuted, opposed, and fought against God’s true and restored religion. But they don’t have a happy ending to look forward to—unless they repent of course, which is always a possibility.

From Mormonism to Catholicism—Conversation

 

I came across the above video in which Steven Pynakker interviews Jeremy Christiansen, author of the book: From the Susquehanna to The Tibor: A Memoir of Conversion from Mormonism to the Roman Catholic Church, in which he tells the story of his conversion from the LDS Church to Catholicism. I haven’t read the book, so I can’t comment on its contents. I am going to briefly comment on a couple of points he has raised in the video. It is a two hour long video, most of which is a kind of rambling conversation, which again is not suitable for a detailed comment. So I have picked out two points that he has brought up in his conversation with Pynakker to briefly comment on. At around 43:49 minutes into the video he raises a question about what can be regarded as an official, or authoritative source of Church doctrine, as follows:

“What is Mormon Doctrine? What is Doctrine, and how do you know where is it in? Where, in the world of Mormonism, do you look to know what is official Church teaching; like, where is that set forth? A lot of times you will hear people say, ‘Well, it is in the Standard Works’. Okay, well, … where in the Standard Works does it say, in the revealed parts, right, that these are official Church teaching? And it was important because, on for instance the issue of blacks and the priesthood, my own take (I think people can disagree with this), but I think it is implausible to suggest that the teaching that had supported the ban on blacks holding the priesthood, was just a policy. I think it was much more than that. That is my own read of things, of the history.”

There are two points that he has raised in there that need to be discussed separately. On the subject of the source of Church doctrine, I would have thought that when all the leadership of the Church unanimously agree, and declare that it is in the Standard Works (canonized scriptures of the Church), then that should be sufficient to establish it. This is what the leadership of the Church have consistently taught. Here are some quotes:

“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, 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 in so far 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. 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.).

And there are also numerous passages of scripture itself that likewise confirms this. Here are some quotes (punctuation revised):

1 Nephi 15:

14 And at that day shall the remnant of our seed know that they are of the house of Israel, and that they are the covenant people of the Lord; and then shall they know, and come to the knowledge of their forefathers; and also to the knowledge of the gospel of their Redeemer, which was ministered unto their fathers by him; wherefore they shall come to the knowledge of their Redeemer, and the very points of his doctrine [as revealed in the canon], that they may know how to come unto him and be saved.

2 Nephi 26:

33 For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile.

3 Nephi 11:

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned.

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.

3 Nephi 21:

6 For thus it behooveth the Father, that it [Book of Mormon] should come forth from the Gentiles, that he may show forth his power unto the Gentiles, for this cause that the Gentiles, if they will not harden their hearts, that they may repent and come unto me, and be baptized in my name, and know of the true points of my doctrine, that they may be numbered among my people, O house of Israel;

Doctrine and Covenants 10:

62 Yea, and I will also bring to light my gospel which was ministered unto them [in the Book of Mormon]; and behold, they shall not deny that which you have received, but they shall build it up; and shall bring to light the true points of my doctrine; yea, and the only doctrine which is in me.

63 And this I do that I may establish my gospel, that there may not be so much contention; yea, Satan doth stir up the hearts of the people to contention concerning the points of my doctrine; and in these things they do err, for they do wrest the scriptures, and do not understand them.

64 Therefore I will unfold unto them this great mystery;

65 For behold, I will gather them as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, if they will not harden their hearts;

66 Yea if they will come, they may, and partake of the waters of life freely.

67 Behold, this is my doctrine: Whosoever repenteth and cometh unto me, the same is my church.

Doctrine and Covenants 11:

15 Behold, I command you that you need not suppose that you are called to preach, until you are called.

16 Wait a little longer, until you shall have my word, my rock, my church, and my gospel, that you may know of a surety my doctrine.

17 And then, behold, according to your desires, yea, even according to your faith shall it be done unto you.

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;

What else is he looking for? How else is the Church supposed to declare what the official, authoritative, definitive, binding source of its theology and doctrine (and law) is? It is in the Standard Works, period, end of story. No arguments after that.

The second point he raises concerns the blacks and the priesthood; and it is not clear exactly what his objection is. Is he saying that it is, or it isn’t Church doctrine? Is he saying that they erred in their decision, or they didn’t err? What exactly is his point? I am not clear on what his objection actually is, to be able to respond to it. He says, “It is implausible to suggest that the teaching … was just a policy”. Okay, what does he think it was, and on the basis of what evidence or criteria? But as far as the official source of Church doctrine is concerned, it is in the scriptural canon of the Church, or in the Standard Works, as Latter-day Saints tend to refer to it. How else is the Church supposed to declare that in order to make him convinced?

Moving on, at 52:40 minutes into the video he makes reference to Jeremiah 17:9: “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked …,” which he has apparently used as the “epigram” to his book, and uses it to criticize, or object to the Latter-day Saint claims to be able to know by the testimony of the Holy Ghost that the Book of Mormon (or anything else) is true, and dismisses it as unreliable “feelings”. Here are some extracts:

“I just had this, you know, it is the epigram to the book that really sums up how I felt. It is Jeremiah chapter 17 verse 9. This is the King James version: ‘But the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt, who can understand it?’ And that is really just how I felt. I felt like I had lived life thinking about what was true and what was not true based on how I felt about it. And … you know, I knew that priesthood leaders are not perfect. I mean, I served a mission; I saw priesthood leaders say things and blessings that made my eyebrows come off my face; and I knew that there was a difference between, or at least I thought I knew, there is a difference between our emotions and the Holy Ghost. And I know that that is usually caveated. But in my experience, and experience with other people I spoke with when I wrote the book, to say, ‘Is this the experience you had, and was it just me, that is how I describe the testimonial experience? And that emotion is very very common. And when I talk to Catholics about this (and I don’t mean this in any way to faithful LDS people who are listening, I don’t mean to denigrate your faith, and so please don’t take it that way, I really don’t mean it that way), But I will say, you know, it is the feeling, the testimony of the Holy Ghost in the Mormon context, for most people is a feeling that everybody has. We all have those moments of strong emotion, in reacting to seeing things that are good, or beautiful, that move us. And I think, you know, when you are raised in a context to believe that when that coincides with say contemplating an abstract truth proposition, like Joseph Smith is a true Prophet; when those two things happen at the same time; when you are taught your whole life that is a special way of knowing, kind of infallibly, right, something is true, irrespective of what other, whatever other evidence you are looking at, it has a real, it is really powerful; and it really is hard for, it was hard for me to leave Mormonism; because it is really dark to stare out into the abyss, and remember all those decisions you made in your life as a subject of prayer, and feeling that response, and making big decisions in life; and to contemplate that maybe it wasn’t God. Just to face up to that, is a dark thing. It is very scary, to sit there and think, ‘Why am I in the profession I am in? Why did I go to school where I went to school? Why am I married to who am I married? Why have I done all these things I have done?’ It pulls out the rug of meaning right from out under you very swiftly. And you know, I feel a lot of compassion for people who go through that; and I understand why so many people who go through that, come out on the other side at best agnostic, or come out atheists, come out very embittered, come out with a sometimes a Nietzschean or nihilistic viewpoint, because it hurts deeply to have that meaning kind of pulled out from under you.”

Again, he has mixed up quite a few unrelated things. There is a promise made in the Book of Mormon, that the truth of it can be known by the power of the Holy Ghost, quote:

Moroni 10:

3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

That is the promise that is contained in the Book of Mormon, which agrees 100% with what the Bible teaches:

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.

James 1:

5  If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.

So there is no question that the Bible teaches that we can know the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the same as what the Book of Mormon teaches. If he has an issue with that, then his problem is with the Bible, not with the Book of Mormon. If he has difficulty believing what the Bible teaches, why is that anybody else’s problem? And the “testimony of the Holy Ghost” is not the same as “feelings”. It is spirit communicating with spirit. It is a sure witness, not some kind of “emotion” or “feeling”. It is a knowledge of the truth gained by a personal revelation from God. Some Latter-day Saints may have expressed it in terms of “feelings,” because they have no other way of describing it. It is not an experience that can be described or conveyed to someone else. Everyone must experience it for himself, and then they will know. It is a sure witness, conveyed by the power of the Spirit of God. It is the same experience that Peter had when he declared, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matthew 16:16); and Jesus replied, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven” (Matthew 16:17). At that point Peter knew something. He wasn’t just “guessing,” or having a “feeling” or “emotion”. Such is a testimony of the Holy Ghost.

Once the truth of the Book of Mormon is established by the sure witness of the Holy Ghost, however, that also establishes Joseph Smith as a true prophet, and the Church he established God’s only true Church on earth. And it is a sure witness, not some kind of a “feeling” or “emotion”. Everything else he has said after that is irrelevant to that main point, and relates to something else. My answer to the rest of what he has said in relation to that subject, as quoted above, is, how do Catholics determine which “school” to go to, or what “employment” to take, or whom to “marry” etc.; and how is that any different from how Latter-day Saints do it? The answer is that most likely there is no difference. They all do it more or less the same way. They all think about it (and if they are faithful Christians, they may also pray about it), and make their decisions on the basis of their logical thinking, and possibly also feelings and emotions. If it is wrong for Latter-day Saints to follow that course in the decisions in their life, then so is it for everybody else, including Catholics; because as far as I know, they all do it in more or less the same way.

The impression I am getting is that none of those are his real reasons for leaving the Church. They are excuses, not reasons. His real reason is something else, which he doesn’t now want to tell us about.