Gods of Our Own Planet!

 

I found the above video in which David Alexander, a recent convert to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from Evangelicalism, spends nearly an hour trying to defend the doctrine that we become “gods of our own planet!” (He begins by admitting that he is not sure that it is an official teaching of the Church, but in the rest of his message he indirectly tries to defend it.) First, I would like to congratulate him on his conversion; he has made the right decision. I also admire his enthusiasm and commitment to defending the Church’s beliefs, doctrines, and teachings. But I should inform him that it is not a doctrine of the Church that we become “gods of our own planet!” That may be part of LDS folklore; or more likely, something that has been spun out by the critics. But it is not a genuine, sound, LDS doctrine. LDS theology does indeed teach that those who are exalted to the celestial kingdom of God are deified; they become divine; they become gods:

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.

Which is indeed also confirmed in the Bible:

John 17:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

1 John 3:

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

2 Peter 1:

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

But nowhere is it said that they become “gods of their own planet”. LDS scripture teaches that those who are so exalted in the celestial kingdom of God, receive all that the Father has:

Doctrine and Covenants 84:

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.

Who wants to be “god of their own planet,” when they can have all that the Father has? Does he know how many planets God the Father has created? I wouldn’t recommend him to try to count them! Who wants to be “god of their own planet,” when they can have all the planets that God has created? There is no LDS scripture that says that we become “gods of our own planet”. My recommendation to him is to try to obtain his knowledge of LDS theology and doctrine directly from LDS scripture, rather than from LDS folklore—or worse still, from what is spun out by the Evangelicals and the critics. The advice that the Lord gave to Hyrum Smith, Joseph Smith’s brother, in section 11 of the Doctrine and Covenants, is appropriate here. This revelation was given to Joseph Smith in May 1829. That was before the Church was organized, and while the Book of Mormon was still being translated:

Doctrine and Covenants 11:

21 Seek not to declare my word, but first seek to obtain my word, and then shall your tongue be loosed; then, if you desire, you shall have my Spirit and my word, yea, the power of God unto the convincing of men.

22 But now hold your peace; study my word which hath gone forth among the children of men, and also study my word which shall come forth among the children of men, or that which is now translating, yea, until you have obtained all which I shall grant unto the children of men in this generation, and then shall all things be added thereto.

That is a good advice to follow. LDS theology is ultimately obtained from LDS scripture. He already seems to have a good familiarity with the Bible, due to his Evangelical background. I recommend him to obtain the same familiarity with the modern scriptures of the Church, and to obtain his knowledge of LDS theology and doctrine directly from them, rather than indirectly from unauthorized sources.

From LDS to Secular Buddhism!

 

I came across the above video, which is an interview with Noah Rasheta, describing his faith journey from LDS to Buddhism, which I thought was interesting. I will be briefly commenting on a short segment of it. But before quoting him and expressing my views, I would like to begin by saying that I have nothing against Buddhism (or any other faith tradition for that matter). If that is what he feels comfortable with, then I am okay with that. But his views are interesting, and worth commenting on. At around 26:27 minutes into the video, in answer to the question of what it is about Buddhism that attracted him, and which he found helpful in his faith journey, he gives the following answer:

“Yeah you know, it is very interesting, isn’t it? I can speak to what it was for me, what really resonated for me, and still does. I think growing up with a system that feels quite rigid, rigid in the sense that: ‘Here is the truth, every other path is not true, right? This is the true path.’ There is no flexibility in that. It is, ‘This is how it is, and that is just how it is.’ And that worked for me because as long as you don’t question anything, it feels very comforting to have a rigid system that just, ‘It is all here for you’. It is like, I mean imagine this, like a solid ground to stand on, I have a very firm ground that I stand on, and a deep sense of security in how firm my ground is. Then when people experience a crisis of faith, the ground gets shaky; and that is really terrifying for someone whose worldview is founded on the fact that this cannot be shaky ground; this is the firm ground to stand on. Then we are left in free fall. You know, most of us who go through this, we have that moment of free fall where there is nothing to stand on. It becomes very scary, very uncomfortable; and what we are looking for is something else firm to stand on. But we as Mormons—and I would argue this is probably the case with a lot of fundamental approach to religion, meaning fundamental in the sense of rigidity, right: ‘This is the right way’. We have already been programmed that these other ways are not the right way. So what we are left is, we are trying to find something firm to stand on; but we are doubting how firm that ground is over there, or that ground over there.”

The point that he has missed there is that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, unlike other Christian churches, is unique in that it claims to be a new dispensation of the gospel, a restoration of the original and true Church of Jesus Christ, by means of a modern day revelation from God. It is not a human endeavor, a “reformation” of some kind, of the religion that God had established 2,000 years ago. That is what makes the restored Church of Jesus Christ unique among the Christian churches. That claim is either true or false. It can’t be somewhere in between. Either Joseph Smith was a true prophet, or he wasn’t. Either he truly saw the Father and the Son in a vision, as he claimed, or he didn’t. Either he translated the Book of Mormon by revelation, by the gift and power of God, as he claimed, or he didn’t. Either it is true scripture, a genuine word of God, or it isn’t. Either he established God’s true Church on earth by revelation, and by the ministration of angels, as he claimed, or he didn’t. It can’t be half and half, or somewhere in between. Nobody in his right mind should want to join such a Church, unless he is convinced in his own mind that those claims are true. Now that “conviction” can take two possible forms: it can either be a conviction by faith, and genuine “belief,” that it is so; or it can be an assured witness, a divine testimony, providing certain knowledge, obtained by a direct revelation from God. Either of those types of convictions are sufficient for accepting the restored gospel, and joining the Church. To some is given the gift of knowledge, and to some is given the gift of faith:

Doctrine and Covenants 46:

13 To some it is given by the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and that he was crucified for the sins of the world.

14 To others it is given to believe on their words, that they also might have eternal life if they continue faithful.

Either of those kinds of convictions are sufficient for accepting the restored gospel, and joining or remaining a member of the Church. But there has to be a conviction of some kind to warrant that. The impression I am getting from his conversation is that he still has some kind of conviction, although not an assured witness, a divine testimony. If so, he still qualifies for salvation and eternal life, if he remains faithful and true to the covenants he has made. The only other thing that he needs to be informed about is that it is indeed possible to have an assured witness, a sure testimony, a certain knowledge, that the Church is true, and that a restoration of the gospel by revelation has indeed taken place. It is possible to know that with absolute certainty, by a direct revelation from God—and the chief means of obtaining that witness is through the Book of Mormon. Then he continues as follows:

“And then you encounter a school of thought like Buddhism that says, ‘Hey, the firmness of the foundation; in other words, the security of having something firm to stand on; what if you can gain that sense of security by having nothing to stand on?’ And that is like really, it is a radical way of thought for us, because we want to stand on something. And then what it provides us is a sense of security, by not having something secure to stand on; and then we feel comforted again, like, well, that is the feeling I wanted again. I wanted to feel comfortable with where I am in life; and where I am is somewhere that I have nowhere to stand on; but now I don’t need anywhere to stand on. That is what it did for me. It gave me that deep sense of security, without having it to stand on anything again. And I think this is interesting, because if you think about it, to me this is the the notion of faith, that I think had been maybe unintentionally hijacked at some point in my life—this thought that I had equated faith to certainty, or knowledge, is I guess the word that we use most in the Mormon circles, right? We don’t go around saying, ‘I believe;’ We say, ‘I know;’ because believing is not enough, you have to know—and not just know; I need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt. And that is where my sense of security comes in is, I know so firmly that I know that I don’t doubt.”

Like I said, absolute certainty (by a personal revelation from God) is definitely possible; but it is not necessary to have “faith,” or a conviction that the Church is true, and justify joining or remaining a member of the Church. If Buddhism helps him in that direction, that is okay with me! He continues:

“And then Buddhism comes along, and presents faith in this alternate perspective, where faith is synonymous with uncertainty; and the opposite of faith is not doubt, it is certainty. So the more certain I am in something, the less faith that would be.”

Now he has got that bit quite wrong. Faith is not “synonymous with uncertainty”. You need to be convinced, somehow or other, that the Church is true, to warrant joining, or remaining a member of it. That conviction can exist either in the form of faith, belief, trust; or else by a certain knowledge gained by a revelation from God. But there has to be a conviction. An illustration will be helpful: I need to have faith, trust, confidence in my doctor that he is honest, knowledgeable, and sincere; and wants to provide me with the best possible medical care. If I had any doubts in my mind about that, I wouldn’t want to trust myself with his care. But still, I can’t say that I know for sure! Nevertheless, I have to be convinced in my mind. That is faith. He continues:

“And that to me was very comforting, to approach these ideas from this new perspective where, it felt like for the first time this, maybe I actually am a much more faithful Christian, now that I am not a Christian, because all I could ever have is maybe the hope. You know, I talk about this with my wife, because she will sometimes ask things like, well, if you don’t believe, does that mean you don’t want us to exist in the afterlife as a family? And I am like, No, that would be amazing! That would be incredible! But all I have is hope that maybe that is what it is. I certainly don’t have knowledge that that is what it is. I don’t know what happens when I die. Do I hope that there is something like that? Well that would be pretty darn cool! Would it surprise me? Yeah, it would. But to me that is faith now. It is the hope of something, but not the certainty of it. And I find a deep sense of comfort in knowing I don’t need the certainty. I thought the certainty was what brought me comfort, but it is not, it was the certainty of what was actually bringing me suffering; because to have that certainty called into question, feels horrible, right? It is like, No, it has to be this. But now I am left with, it doesn’t have to be that; it would be great if it is that, but it doesn’t have to be certain. Maybe that is why a lot of us gravitate to something like Buddhism, because it helps take away the rigidity that we thought we needed in our life to find peace. It is like, maybe the thing you thought you needed for peace, you actually don’t need, but you can still gain that peace. And ironically this time it is going to happen by not knowing, not by knowing. That is what it has done for me.”

Like I said, he has confused his terms, vocabulary, and theology quite a bit. There is a difference between “knowing with certainty,” and being “convinced by faith”. I am convinced by faith and trust, based on my knowledge of his character, personality, and friendship; as well as his training and education; that my doctor is sincere, committed, and capable of providing me with the best possible medical care—without “knowing for sure” that such is the case! That is the difference between faith and knowledge. If I had any doubts in my mind whatever that my doctor was not sufficiently competent, or sincere and genuine in wanting to provide me with the best possible medical care, I would change him immediately. So it is possible to be “convinced” of something by faith and trust, without having “certain knowledge”. But it is also possible to have certain knowledge, to know for sure, by a direct personal revelation from God, as in the case of the restored Church of Jesus Christ, that it is God’s true Church.

Is God Necessary for Ethics?

 

I came across the above video in which Dr. James White and Pastor Jeff Durbin (Evangelicals), debate with Professor Deen Chatterjee and Chaplin Jared Anderson (atheists), on the question of whether “God is required for ethics”—James White and Jeff Durbin taking the affirmative side, while Deen Chatterjee and Jared Anderson taking the negative side. It is a long video, parts of which are a little bit incoherent, and it would be too tedious to attempt to unpack it all, and reply to it in detail; so I am going to confine my comments on it to one general observation.

The debate is supposed to be on the question of whether “God is required for ethics?” James White and Jeff Durbin, however, have turned it into an incongruous monologue affirming that unless you are a “Christian,” you cannot be ethical, or have ethics! Their contention throughout is that it is impossible to be moral, ethical, virtuous; kind, compassionate, loving, merciful, charitable; honest, truthful, a man of integrity etc., if you are not a Christian! It is impossible even to be logical or scientific, if you are not a Christian! It is impossible to create or appreciate beauty and art, if you are not a Christian! That is their line of argument throughout, especially of Jeff Durbin. And it is a monologue, not a debate.

The answer to that is that there are hundreds, if not thousands of nations and societies across the world, large and small, who are (and historically have been) very moral and ethical—and they are not Christians. Don’t the Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Janes, Shintos, Muslims etc. have ethics? Are they not moral, ethical people? Don’t they believe in love, kindness, mercy, and charity etc.? Don’t they believe in honesty, truth, and integrity? Of course they do! And they are not Christians. Even the Bible acknowledges that. According to the Bible, you don’t have to be a Christian to be moral and ethical—and be approved by God and be saved:

Acts 10:

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

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

Romans 2:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

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

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

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

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

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

Prior to becoming a Christian, Cornelius was visited by an angel informing him that God had observed and approved of his ethical conduct and charitable behavior, and his alms to the poor:

Acts 10:

1 There was a certain man in Caesarea called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band,

2 A devout man, and one that feared God [according to his pagan tradition] with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway.

3 He saw in a vision evidently about the ninth hour of the day an angel of God coming in to him, and saying unto him, Cornelius.

4 And when he looked on him, he was afraid, and said, What is it, Lord? And he said unto him, Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.

Cornelius was a Roman centurion and a pagan when he received this angelic visitation. How many such angelic visitations have Jeff Durbin and James White received? I doubt if any! So it looks like Cornelius the pagan had been a lot more “ethical” than Jeff Durbin and James White have been!

I personally accept the proposition that in the ultimate sense, God is required for ethics. But that does not translate into saying that unless you are a Christian, you cannot be moral or ethical—which is the line of argument that they are adopting. So on the whole, I have to conclude that the atheist side won the debate—not so much because all of their propositions are correct, but because of the incompetence and lack of coherence of the opposing side.

Deen Chatterjee comes across as a measured, respectful, considerate, logical and reasonable debater. I am not necessarily agreeing with all of his conclusions, but I respect the civility, reasonableness, open mindedness, and his willingness to engage and be persuaded otherwise by reasonable arguments with which he expresses his views, and engages in debate. It is in stark contrast to the arrogance, belligerence, and conceit of the opposing side. Jeff Durbin especially comes across as belligerent, argumentative, antagonistic, and contentious. That is not how you engage in a respectful dialogue and debate. You would only want to adopt that tactic if you are not sure of the logical basis and validity of your own argument, so you adopt the tactic of shouting at the other side instead. That is not how to “win friends and influence people”. It is not how you win debates either. So on the whole, I would have to conclude that the atheist side won the debate. They presented better arguments, even though I don’t agree with all their conclusions. The following is a short extract from the debate, depicting a brief exchange between Dr. Chatterjee and his interlocutors, that illustrates my point. The extract starts at the 1:36:33 timestamp into the video (emphasis added):

Jeff Durbin: “You ask the question of why would we brainwash our children in the Christian faith? Why would we teach them things like empathy, love? Why when we talk about things like beauty, truth, goodness, knowledge? And I am going to say, Dr. Chatterjee, because apart from the biblical worldview, all of those concepts have absolutely no meaning. Without the Christian worldview, there is no true love. Without the Christian worldview, there is no beauty. Without the Christian worldview, there is no foundation that satisfies the preconditions of intelligibility necessary for science, for Logic, for ethics, for truth, for beauty, for goodness; and so we talk to our kids about these things because they are the truth. And so I know you use the word brainwashing, but it really comes down to we are all teaching, ‘Who is teaching something that is in accordance with the truth?’”

Chatterjee: “Look, why do you believe that love, empathy, good ideas, meaning in life, all those things, you have to be only a Christian to have that? What about the whole big world? Christianity is just one tiny part of it. If we believe that way, you have to give some reason, you are simply repeating yourself going in a cycle. I don’t understand that.”

Jeff Durbin: “Now let me try to make it clear. I did have it in my opening statement, so perhaps you missed some of it. But what I said in the opening statement is that I provided the justification, or a philosophical warrant for the claims that I was making; and I based them upon the Triune God of Holy Scripture. He has revealed himself in nature, through prophets and apostles, and ultimately through the Incarnation of Jesus Christ in history. In other words, Dr. Chatterjee, the Christian claim is that God has spoken; and the claim of scripture is that apart from the Christian God, if you reject him you become a fool, intellectually, morally; and apart from the Christian God, you can’t prove anything. I will give you one example, Dr. Chatterjee, so you can see what I am aiming at. When we challenged you to provide a foundation or justification for why we should be rational, given your worldview, you haven’t given one, and you can’t give one in your worldview; because your worldview is a naturalistic worldview, where all you have is matter and motion. But laws of logic are immaterial, invariance, universal laws and truths that we are all supposed to be holding on to. The Christian worldview can provide a foundation for those concepts and those truths, but your system cannot. So reject Jesus, and reject the laws of logic; reject Jesus, and reject science, the uniformity in nature, the principle of induction. Reject Jesus, and say things like, it might be okay to eat your neighbor rather than love them.”

Chatterjee: “Well, I have the highest respect for Christianity, Christian God; but I don’t like people being close-minded. If we believe that way, I would like to see some reason for that, because there is a bigger world outside of Christianity. I didn’t see any reason why we have to confine ourselves to Christianity; give some reasons. In fact, I perhaps I can give you more, better reasons as to why Christianity is such a wonderful religion than what we have been hearing from you that is beside one thing, okay?”

James White: “If I could answer that, Dr. Chatterjee. When you say, there is so much more outside of Christianity, if Jesus was who he claimed to be, then what could be outside of Christianity? He is described in Colossians chapter one: “for by him were all things made were in heaven and earth, visible invisible principalities, Powers, dominions, or authorities, all things created by Him, and he is before all things, and in him all things hold together, they consist.” So if Jesus is actually the Incarnate Creator, what could be outside of him? That is the whole point. We are saying, we have our creator has entered into his creation and said, This is how you live, this is how you have life. So you have to say, Jesus had to have been wrong. You literally have to make an epistemic claim that Jesus was not who he claimed to be, to say there is something outside of the realm of his authority.”

Except that that is not what Chatterjee is saying. He is presenting a valid argument, but he is not articulating it very well. His point is that history, society, and culture in the “big world” out there tells us that you don’t have to be a Christian to be ethical. That is a valid point, and destroys their argument completely. Their argument is not that “God is necessary for ethics”. If that is what they were arguing for, the debate might have taken a different turn, and possibly more in their favor. But that is not what they are arguing for. Their argument is that you cannot be ethical if you are not a Christian—which history, societies, and experience (and even the Bible) proves to be untrue. That destroys their argument completely. It is a failed debate from the start. And notice especially the civility, humility, and respect for Christianity with which Dr. Chatterjee conducts his debate. It is in stark contrast to the arrogance, belligerence, and conceit of the opposing side. It is a disaster of a debate, a train wreck from the Christian side. The atheists have won the debate hands down—thanks to the incompetence and arrogance of Jeff Durbin and James White!

Pastor Jeff on the Book of Mormon–Part V

 

Pastor Jeff has posted his latest video discussing the contents of the Book of Mormon, in which he focuses mainly on the book of Mosiah, with a passing reference to a few very short preceding books. I will be commenting selectively on a few highlights that he seems to find controversial. At around 10.10 minutes into the video he makes the following observation:

“Then he [King Benjamin] starts to make a series of statements that as I was reading, just to be completely honest with you, it felt very Evangelical to a certain extent. He is making statements, you will see right here for example in verse 5:”

Mosiah 3:

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

“And he continues to really describe this ministry of Jesus. But the terminology that is used there, where Jesus is omnipotent; which we hold on to pretty tightly, when it comes to a Trinitarian view, of God being all-powerful. That is one of the quintessential key characteristics of who God is, that there is nothing too difficult for him, and that within his character he has the ability to do whatever he desires to do, which is why he was able to create all things, being outside of the universe, having power and sovereignty over it, while he does have the ability to do exactly what is necessary to bring salvation to fallen mankind; and that in the same passage it is talked about him being “from eternity to eternity,” which is the idea of him being eternal, and all of these things being attributed specifically to God becoming man, or dwelling in a tabernacle of clay, dwelling among men. It sounds very much like the eternal God, the eternal Jesus, a Jesus that at no point didn’t exist, that he wasn’t begotten in the heavenly realms, but that he has always been God; and even getting into chapter four, as Benjamin sort of concludes these words, …”

I have already discussed the Trinitarian language found in the Book of Mormon, and in other modern scriptures of the Church, in an earlier reply to him which can be seen here; therefore it is not necessary to discuss it at great length in this post. I will only here reiterate that according to modern revelation, the divine attributes of infinity, eternity, and everlastingness etc., are attributes that can be acquired. For example, concerning those who are deified, or attain godhood, it says:

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.

That may sound counterintuitive to us: but that is due to the limitations of human intuition. For example modern revelation teaches that God exists 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.

If that is a property that can be acquired by man (and there is no reason that it shouldn’t be), then acquiring the divine attributes of infinity, eternity, and everlastingness by man cannot be such a farfetched idea. If man can be made to exist outside of time as God does, then acquiring those divine attributes by man cannot be such an impossible occurrence. Moving on, at around 14:40 minutes into the video he makes the following observation regarding the scriptural meaning of being the “children of God”:

“… and Benjamin says something in response to their willingness to receive these words, that I want to touch on just for a second, because it highlights a distinction between Latter-day Saint doctrine and mainstream Christianity; and it is in this statement here:”

Mosiah 5:

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

“So that is a question I have, because as I have communicated before, mainstream Christianity doesn’t necessarily believe that we are automatically the sons and daughters of God; that there is not an adherence, or widely taught belief that there was a pre-existence, that we are the actual offspring of God. But he created us in his image, and we in our fallen state are natural enemies of God; but when we put our faith in him and obey, it sounds a lot like Benjamin 5:7, where because of one’s obedience, you are then adopted, or you become sons and daughters of God. You can see that in verses like John 1:12, that says, “But as many as received him,” talking about Jesus, “to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them the believe on his name, which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.” Or another passage here in Ephesians 1:4, talking about those who are in Christ are blessed:”

Ephesians 1:

4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

5 Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will,

“So we teach in mainstream Christianity that we are his sons and daughters because we are adopted as heirs to the blessings that we receive through Christ; that we aren’t inherently, automatically, the sons and daughters of God. So that is something that jumped out to me there.”

The reason for that is that Evangelical Christians take a very shortsighted and myopic view of scripture. They are only interested in those bits of the Bible that support their shortsighted interpretations, and turn a blind eye to the rest. The bits of scripture that he has overlooked are the following:

Job 1:

6 Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them.

Job 2:

1 Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord.

In these verses those disembodied, spiritual creatures, whoever they are—including Satan, who is an enemy to God—are identified as “sons of God”. Likewise in Genesis 6:1-4, those unregenerate, sinful humans are identified as sons of God:

Genesis 6:

6 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

In Isaiah, God identifies the rebellious, unregenerate children of Israel as his children:

Isaiah 1:

2 Hear, O heavens, and give ear, O earth: for the Lord hath spoken, I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me.

And many more such examples in the Old Testament:

Deuteronomy 14:

1 Ye are the children of the Lord your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead.

Psalm 82:

6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Isaiah 63:

16 Doubtless thou art our father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel acknowledge us not: thou, O Lord, art our father, our redeemer; thy name is from everlasting.

Isaiah 64:

8 But now, O Lord, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

Malachi 1:

6 A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? saith the Lord of hosts unto you, O priests, that despise my name. And ye say, Wherein have we despised thy name?

Malachi 2:

10 Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?

In John 10:33-36, Jesus quotes Psalm 82:6 in support of identifying himself as the Son of God; and in the Gospel of Luke, chapter 3 verse 38, Adam is identified as a “son of God” by direct descent, not by virtue of some kind of “regeneration”:

Luke 3:

38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

And in Acts 17:28-29 Paul identifies the Gentile Greeks at Mars’ Hill as the “offspring” of God:

Acts 17:

28 For in him [God] we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

29 Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device.

What is his explanation for these? The short answer is that in the scriptures, words are used with more than one shades of meaning. There is one sense in which all of mankind are the children of God by virtue of being created in his image. There is also another sense of the term in which only those who are regenerated through faith in Jesus Christ are considered the children of God. These two different senses are not mutually exclusive. Each is valid and true within its own context. You don’t mix them up. Evangelicals are so shortsighted and myopic in their interpretation of scripture that they can’t reconcile the two. It has to be either one or the other. It can’t be both. LDS theology is based on what all of scripture says, not just on a tiny bit of it that might suit our purpose, as is the case with Evangelicalism. His next observation, at 19.02 minutes into the video, is with reference to a quote from Isaiah which occurs in Mosiah chapter 14, which he comments on as follows:

“In chapter 14 he gets a little bit more Messianic, and he begins to quote Messianic Prophecy from Isaiah 53. One of the things that is sticking out to me, that tends to reinforce what I am observing from my perspective as an anachronism, or something that just doesn’t seem chronologically correct, is in a case like this where there is a quoting of Isaiah 53, and it literally is from verse 1 to verse 12 in Isaiah 53. In fact, the verse numbers actually match in the Book of Mormon, as they do in Isaiah; and you might be asking, why is that sticking out at me? Well, because it wasn’t until well into Medieval times, just past Medieval times, that chapter and verses even existed in the Bible. Those weren’t inspired. That was added later on by scribes and people who are trying to preserve the scriptures, and wanting to make it easier to make references. And even in this passage in Isaiah is 503, it is part of a larger prophetic utterance, where there is not necessarily clear breaking points. In fact there are a lot of people through the years who have been critical in some of the chapter and verse subdivisions in the Bible, because whoever was making those decisions, wasn’t necessarily always starting and stopping chapters or verses, in natural breaking points when it comes to sort of the flow of thought. So this is a perfect example. Isaiah 53 is 12 verses, and I just find it curious that Mosiah here somewhere around 200 BC is quoting a chapter from the Bible, and following the exact chapter markings and verse markings that wouldn’t even exist for another 1500 or 2000 years.”

The answer to that is that the Book of Mormon was not revealed with any chapter and verse divisions, including the Isaiah quotes. Those chapter and verse divisions were added later—and for the same reasons that they were added to the Bible—for convenience, and for ease of reference. And the chapter and verse divisions of the Isaiah quotes in the Book of Mormon are made to match those of the Bible for the same reasons: for convenience, and ease of reference with the Bible. The text of the Book of Mormon was not revealed to Joseph Smith that way, with chapter and verse divisions. They were added much later for the reasons given. And the verse divisions of the Isaiah quotes are made to match the Bible for the same reason. He might also be interested to know that the Isaiah quotes found in the Book of Mormon are not identical to the ones in the KJV. In some of the lengthier quotes, the variations can be quite considerable. See here for examples. In the case of the Isaiah 53:1-12 quote, the variations are not quite as extensive as in some of the other quotes, but they are not altogether insignificant either. I have attached a PDF file which can be downloaded from here, indicating all the variations. If you download the PDF and view it in a browser, it can be enlarged to see the variations more clearly. The crossed out bits are the original KJV version, and the text highlighted in red are the Book of Mormon variants. At 20:41 minutes into the video he picks up on the doctrine of the Trinity again as follows:

“There is a couple other spots in the previous chapter, chapter 15, as Abinadi is continuing to prophesy, talking about the Incarnation. This gets a little bit more theological, but he does make some statements that to me do sound very Trinitarian, when it says:”

Mosiah 15:

1 And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.

2 And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son—

3 The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son—

4 And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.

5 And thus the flesh becoming subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people.

“That sounds very much like the Son of the Father are being talked about as one, as the one God, and leads to maybe even some confusion I have, that when I talk to Latter-day Saints, they believe that Jesus is God, the Heavenly Father is God, but they still state, there is only one God. At some point, even the Latter-day Saint understanding starts to sound kind of Trinitarian to me. If not Trinitarian, then polytheistic, which a lot of Latter-day Saints come back and tell me, No, we are not polytheistic. So I still have some work to do to really understand a Latter-day Saint understanding of the Godhead, and why it is any more or less confusing than a Trinitarian view.”

I have highlighted the significant bits in the Mosiah 15 quote for him to think about. The doctrine of the Trinity taught in Mosiah 15 is not the same as the Trinitarian theology of Evangelicalism. They are worlds apart. He needs to study them very carefully indeed to appreciate their significance and difference.