Comments on Talking With Mormons by Richard J Mouw: Part I, pp. 57–60

Richard Mouw’s recent book, Talking With Mormons, is addressed mainly to Evangelicals, but it also has its interest for Latter-day Saints. In this, and possibly other articles I will be commenting on some of the points of interest that he has raised. Here is a first quote:

“In my theology, at the heart of it all is the need for rescue from our sinful condition. We’re lost sinners, rebels against God. And we’re so enmeshed in our sinful rebellion that we can’t get out of the mess by our own efforts. We need a Savior. And God has provided one in the person of Jesus Christ. ‘While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us’ (Romans 5:8). Wonderful news!

“When I talk about all of that with my Mormon friends, many of them—scholars and church leaders—agree. And I take their agreement as a wonderful sign. But for me the next question is, Given that we agree that we’re sinners desperately in need of divine rescue, what kind of Savior would it take to save us? What does Jesus Christ need to be like in his own ‘being’ in order to accomplish salvation for the likes of us?

“And this is where it gets interesting. Is the gap between human unworthiness and divine mercy that seems to be implicit in so many of Mormonism’s own formulations of the human predicament and the greatness of salvation—is that gap capable of being explained adequately by a theology in which the God who saves and the humans who receive that gracious salvation are ‘of the same species’ ontologically?” (pp. 57–58.)

The answer is No, it isn’t. I am not in favor of using nonstandard (i.e. non-scriptural) terms to define the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—if it can at all be avoided. I have as much difficulty with the word “species” in this context as he does. I don’t know where it comes from, and I feel under no obligation to accept it. I think that our friend Richard Mouw has been ill served by his Latter-day Saint scholar-friends if they have been imposing that kind of terminology on him. The word does not occur in modern revelation, or the scriptural canon of the Church, and I don’t really know what it is supposed to mean in that context. I consider myself an informed Latter-day Saint, and I don’t accept that God and man are “of the same species”—if for no other reason than because I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Scriptural words tend to be self-defining in theological terms. They are defined by the context in which they occur. Non-scriptural words are not so defined, and therefore need to be very precisely defined before being used—and therefore preferably avoided when possible. That is my biggest problem with the use of that term theologically to define the relationship of man to God.

Perhaps what those who have been using such terms have been trying to do (in a sloppy and superficial way) is to narrow the gap between God and man by capturing in their own words the essence of scriptures such as the following:

John 20:

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Hebrews 2:

10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

11 For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee.

Luke 13:

32 And he said unto them, … Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected.

Colossians 1:

                    

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

Revelation 3:

14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

                                                                        

Perhaps at this point it is worth turning the question around, and asking Richard Mouw how he (and other Evangelicals) understands those scriptures. Do these scriptures tend to “narrow the gap” between God and man in any degree? If not, why not? And if yes, how would he define that “narrowing of the gap,” without using such crude terminology as belonging to the same “species”? He then continues:

                                          

“Note that in posing these questions to my Mormon friends, I’m not meaning to question the sincerity of their professions of faith in the saving power of Jesus Christ. What I’m asking them is what I take it the Princeton theologian Charles Hodge would have wanted to ask of his liberal counterpart Friedrich Schleiermacher: Given your obviously sincere love of the Savior in whom you’re trusting for your salvation, is the theology that you teach capable of sustaining that trust?” (p. 58.)

The answer is Yes, it does. That is because the theology I teach is derived from the revealed scriptural canon of the Church, not from Latter-day Saint “scholars”. My theology of the Atonement is defined (among others) by the following verses:

2 Nephi 9:

7 Wherefore, it must needs be an infinite atonement—save it should be an infinite atonement this corruption could not put on incorruption. Wherefore, the first judgment which came upon man must needs have remained to an endless duration. And if so, this flesh must have laid down to rot and to crumble to its mother earth, to rise no more.

2 Nephi 25:

16 … believe in Christ, the Son of God, and the atonement, which is infinite for all mankind …

Alma 34:

10 For it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice; yea, not a sacrifice of man, neither of beast, neither of any manner of fowl; for it shall not be a human sacrifice; but it must be an infinite and eternal sacrifice.

11 Now there is not any man that can sacrifice his own blood which will atone for the sins of another. Now, if a man murdereth, behold will our law, which is just, take the life of his brother? I say unto you, Nay.

12 But the law requireth the life of him who hath murdered; therefore there can be nothing which is short of an infinite atonement which will suffice for the sins of the world.

13 Therefore, it is expedient that there should be a great and last sacrifice, and then shall there be, or it is expedient there should be, a stop to the shedding of blood; then shall the law of Moses be fulfilled; yea, it shall be all fulfilled, every jot and tittle, and none shall have passed away.

14 And behold, this is the whole meaning of the law, every whit pointing to that great and last sacrifice; and that great and last sacrifice will be the Son of God, yea, infinite and eternal.

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.

Now that is genuine Latter-day Saint doctrine! Of this “infinite atonement” Elder Russell M. Nelson has said the following:

“In preparatory times of the Old Testament, the practice of atonement was finite—meaning it had an end. It was a symbolic forecast of the definitive Atonement of Jesus the Christ. His Atonement is infinite—without an end. It was also infinite in that all humankind would be saved from never-ending death. It was infinite in terms of His immense suffering. It was infinite in time, putting an end to the preceding prototype of animal sacrifice. It was infinite in scope—it was to be done once for all. And the mercy of the Atonement extends not only to an infinite number of people, but also to an infinite number of worlds created by Him. It was infinite beyond any human scale of measurement or mortal comprehension.

               

“Jesus was the only one who could offer such an infinite atonement, since He was born of a mortal mother and an immortal Father. Because of that unique birthright, Jesus was an infinite Being.” Source.

I wonder if there is an Evangelical formulation of the theology of the Atonement that is equally authoritative or comprehensive. The word “species” does not seem to fit into that language. Does that theology sustain that “trust”? I think that it does. I think that Mouw would agree that it does. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that sola scriptura works in the restored Church of Jesus Christ too! He then continues:

“Now, my second focus: the relationship between the classic creeds and the development of doctrine.

“The reason why the Christian church of the fourth century had to say something about the “being” of Christ was that disagreements had arisen that simply had to be adjudicated if there was to be a clear and commonly accepted understanding of what it means for Jesus to be the One who ‘for us and for our salvation … came down from heaven,’ as the Nicene Creed puts it. And while the Latter-day Saints presently exempt themselves from that consensus—sticking with, as we saw John Welch putting it, ‘the pure and simple spirit that had prevailed in the apostolic era’— …” (p. 58.)

That in itself raises the question of what is the “pure and simple spirit that had prevailed in the apostolic era,” and how do you recognize it? Does the (sometimes questionable) world of Latter-day Saint “scholarship” in which Professor Welch swims represent that “pure and simple spirit that had prevailed in the apostolic era”? I am not sure that it does. He continues:

“… it will be interesting to see what happens when the LDS leadership decides that this “pure and simple spirit” is being violated in various Mormon expressions about the person and work of Christ.

“My own prediction is that as the scholarly study of Mormon doctrine continues to grow in impressive ways, the need for new doctrinal decisions will become pressing. As Mormonism’s younger generation becomes increasingly well educated and well versed in the various strands of religious thought in the larger culture, new challenges to standard Mormon teachings will inevitably emerge.” (pp. 58–59.)

The Lord has outlined a procedure to be followed when a theological dispute or controversy arises in the Church:

D&C 102:

23 In case of difficulty respecting doctrine or principle, if there is not a sufficiency written to make the case clear to the minds of the council, the president may inquire and obtain the mind of the Lord by revelation.

In other words, at first recourse should be made to what has already been revealed (i.e. in existing scripture). If that proves insufficient, then recourse can be made to the second option—obtaining further knowledge by direct revelation from the Lord. In historical Christianity (e.g. at the Council of Nicaea), they only had the first option available to them, not the second. They did the best that they could with the option that was available to them. And their best efforts should not be a source of derision among Latter-day Saints—especially given that their own track record in dealing with doctrinal controversies in the Church has not been very impressive. In the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in its past history, when doctrinal issues have arisen, the procedure outlined above has not always been followed, as it should have been; and the opportunity to receive important doctrinal revelations for the Church at important junctures in its history has been missed. But that was an aberration of the past, which hopefully will not be repeated in the future. He then continues:

“A case in point: as I was writing about these matters I read an issue of the ‘progressive’ Mormon magazine, Sunstone, in which there was a report about a discussion group that had met in a Phoenix home on an evening in October 2009. The writer was himself a participant, and he described with some enthusiasm the range of views represented in the group, which he characterized as a gathering of ‘misfit Mormons.’ The intellectual ‘tent was certainly large that evening,’ he wrote: ‘Internet Mormons, Chapel Mormons, Ex-Mormons, Post Mormons, Feminist Mormons, Gay Mormons’—and even, he says, ‘a couple of Catholics thrown in to add some diversity.’

“As a longtime subscriber to Sunstone, I could have recommended some of Sunstone’s other writers to add yet more diversity to the mix: Jungian Mormons, Deconstructionist Mormons, Process Theology Mormons, Mormons who sneak off to Anglican services, and so on.” (p. 59.)

I don’t think that that kind of opinionizations will ever have a serious impact on the direction and course of the development of Church doctrine. He continues:

“The very existence of an increasingly expanding Mormon intellectual ‘tent’ is a relatively new phenomenon. It’s not unthinkable that there may come a time when the LDS church is faced with the need to establish boundaries in how the faithful are to understand—to make clear sense of—‘the pure and simple spirit that had prevailed in the apostolic era.’ My hunch is that when that happens, it will be very much like a ‘Nicene moment’ for Mormonism.

“The possibility that such a moment may be comming is, as I see it, a good reason for some of us evangelicals to be around in the hope of being able to join in that conversation!” (pp. 59–60.)

“Nicene moments” (though not as dramatic) have arisen in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in the past, and may arise again in the future; but its outcome will be determined by following the procedure outlined by the Lord in D&C 102:23.

Socialism vs. the United Order

The United Order does not describe a “capitalist” economy; but neither does it also describe a “socialist” one.

Socialism is defined as the state ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange. In socialism you don’t “own” anything, only the state does. You work for the state, and the state gives you what it thinks you deserve.

In the United Order God owns everything; but He trusts you with a title of ownership to his property according to the laws of this world; and you in turn trust Him with your property (which He has given to you) should He at any time require it. It works entirely on the basis of trust. The two sides (God and man) must trust each other implicitly, otherwise it won’t work.

Socialism amounts to economic dictatorship. It deprives people of the right to engage in legitimate economic activity. Mankind are as much entitled to economic freedom as they are to political freedom. By economic freedom I mean the right to trade, to own property, to invest, and to engage in legitimate business pursuits. That is as much an “inalienable right of man” (US Constitution) as is political freedom. Socialism deprives people of the right to do that. That is how it was in the socialist states in the Eastern Block before they finally collapsed.

The United Order doesn’t deprive you of the right to engage in those kinds of economic activities. On the contrary, in D&C 104 it specifically assigns to certain individuals “stewardships” which were essentially businesses, the purpose of which was to enable them to make money on it and live. The only odd thing about it was that they all had a “common treasury!” Their profits were shared, and they all had an equal right to draw upon the treasury for their business requirements. If one of the businesses was failing, it could rely on the financial strength of the others to survive, at least temporarily.

But in those days the world economy had not yet become heavily industrialized. The giant corporations that exist in industrialized economies of today did not exist at that time. If the United Order was to be practiced by everyone today, I don’t know how it would look like. Would it look like D&C 104? I wouldn’t know; but I doubt if it would. One thing I am certain: we wouldn’t be going back to the giant Soviet style industrial complexes which proved to be so inefficient, and ultimately such dismal failures.

It seems to me that there are some LDS scholars today who make the mistake of confusing socialism with the United Order.

Why I Disagree With Daniel C. Peterson’s Interpretation of 1 Nephi 11

In his recent article in the Mormon Times: “How Nephi understood the Tree of Life,” Dr. Peterson reiterates his personal interpretation of 1 Nephi 11, which he had previously expressed in a longer article called “Nephi and His Asherah: A Note on 1 Nephi 11:8–23,” published by the Maxwell Institute. The main thesis of his paper, or the main question he tries to answer, is expressed in the following paragraph quoted from the original article:

The question to be treated in this paper is, Why would Nephi, without any explicit direction from his guide, have seen an immediate connection between a tree and the virginal mother of a divine child? In other words, how, without any real explanation, would he recognize a depiction of Mary and Jesus as an elucidation of the meaning of a beautiful tree? In order to answer that question, I believe we must examine a facet of the history of ancient Israelite worship that has become much clearer only in the light of very recent research.

The problem with his analysis starts right here. He is basically asking the wrong question. He has misunderstood the “connection” in 1 Nephi 11. The connection is not between the “tree” and the “virginal mother”. The connection is between the tree and the coming of the Redeemer into the world. The “virginal mother” is unrelated to the symbolism of the three. She appears on the scene because she happens to be the conduit through whom the Redeemer was born. She was the parachute, so to speak, by means of which the Redeemer descended to earth. The symbolism of the tree does not relate to the parachute. It relates to the Person Who descended by means of it. His entire paper then centers on answering that wrong question; which of course explains why he gets the wrong answers. You don’t come up with right answers by asking, and then answering wrong questions. His article in Mormon Times starts as follows:

Nephi’s vision of the tree of life, among the best-known passages in the Book of Mormon, expands upon the vision received earlier by his father, Lehi.

“And it came to pass that the Spirit said unto me: Look! And I looked and beheld a tree; and it was like unto the tree which my father had seen; and the beauty thereof was far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.

“And it came to pass after I had seen the tree, I said unto the Spirit: I behold thou hast shown unto me the tree which is precious above all.

“And he said unto me: What desirest thou?

“And I said unto him: To know the interpretation thereof” (1 Nephi 11:8-11).

Because Nephi wanted to know the meaning of the tree that his father had seen and that he himself now saw, we would expect “the Spirit” to answer Nephi’s question. But, instead, Nephi is first shown a young virgin and then, after an interval, sees the same virgin holding a child in her arms. And he is told that she is “the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh” (1 Nephi 11:18).

The flaw in this reasoning is that he has jumped from verse 11 to verse 18, and overlooked the significant verses in the middle. Here are the verses he has skipped over:

12 And it came to pass that he said unto me: Look! And I looked as if to look upon him, and I saw him not; for he had gone from before my presence.

13 And it came to pass that I looked and beheld the great city of Jerusalem, and also other cities. And I beheld the city of Nazareth; and in the city of Nazareth I beheld a virgin, and she was exceedingly fair and white.

14 And it came to pass that I saw the heavens open; and an angel came down and stood before me; and he said unto me: Nephi, what beholdest thou?

15 And I said unto him: A virgin, most beautiful and fair above all other virgins.

16 And he said unto me: Knowest thou the condescension of God?

17 And I said unto him: I know that he loveth his children; nevertheless, I do not know the meaning of all things.

The key to understanding the symbolism of the tree is in verse 16: “Knowest thou the condescension of God?” The meaning of that will be discussed later; but let us continue with his reasoning:

Then “the Spirit” asks Nephi the question that Nephi himself had posed only a few verses before: “Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?” (1 Nephi 11:21).

Strikingly, though the vision of Mary seems irrelevant to Nephi’s question—for the tree is nowhere mentioned in the angelic guide’s response—Nephi himself now replies that, yes, he knows the answer (1 Nephi 11:22-23).

Again, he has jumped over the significant verses. Let’s look at these verses in more detail:

19 And it came to pass that I beheld that she was carried away in the Spirit; and after she had been carried away in the Spirit for the space of a time the angel spake unto me, saying: Look!

20 And I looked and beheld the virgin again, bearing a child in her arms.

21 And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?

22 And I answered him, saying: Yea, it is the love of God, which sheddeth itself abroad in the hearts of the children of men; wherefore, it is the most desirable above all things.

23 And he spake unto me, saying: Yea, and the most joyous to the soul.

The meaning of the tree is directly linked to the “Lamb of God, the Son of the Eternal Father,” not to Mary. Mary has nothing to do with the symbolism of the tree at all. His attempt to link the two together is contrived, and is not borne out by the obvious meaning of the text.

His observation is correct that the angel does not directly answer Nephi’s question, but instead shows him a vision of the coming of the Savior into the world; and Nephi’s mind appears to miraculously light up, and comprehends the meaning of the tree! That phenomenon occurs in relation to the meaning of the “rod of iron,” and the “great and spacious building” as well. The angel does not directly tell Nephi the meanings of them; instead he shows him a vision of other things, and Nephi’s mind seems to light up, and discover for himself what they mean! If Nephi needed a prop to understand what the symbolism of the tree was (i.e. association with Asherah, according to DCP), what were the props that enabled him to comprehend the meanings of the “rod of iron” and the “great and spacious building”? The answer is that no props were needed. The meanings were revealed to him by light of the Spirit as the vision unfolded.

But Daniel makes two mistakes here. Firstly, he incorrectly associates the symbolism of the tree with Mary, whereas the symbolism relates exclusively to the coming of the Savior into the world. And then, having made that incorrect association, he tries to find an arbitrary explanation for Nephi’s inexplicable realization of the meaning of the tree by making the assumption that Nephi’s sudden realization is the result of the association of the symbolism of the tree with the Asherah mythology of the ancient Near East, which is a completely tendentious argument based entirely on an unlikely speculation. Daniel then continues his narrative as follows:

How has Nephi come to this understanding? Clearly, the answer to his question about the meaning of the tree lies in the virgin mother with her child. It seems, in fact, that the virgin actually is the tree, in some sense.

Not so! The symbolism of the tree has nothing to do with the “virgin mother”. And Nephi’s inexplicable “realization” can be explained in more scriptural, more logical ways. We have a similar situation arising in the vision of the redemption of the dead given to Joseph F. Smith:

D&C 138:

28 And I wondered at the words of Peter—wherein he said that the Son of God preached unto the spirits in prison, who sometime were disobedient, when once the long-suffering of God waited in the days of Noah—and how it was possible for him to preach to those spirits and perform the necessary labor among them in so short a time.

29 And as I wondered, my eyes were opened, and my understanding quickened, and I perceived that the Lord went not in person among the wicked and the disobedient who had rejected the truth, to teach them;

Here Joseph F. Smith is not given explicitly the answer to his question; instead, he is shown a vision of the redemption of the dead; and then he perceives the answer to his question by the light of the Sprit without needing to be expressly “told”. Nephi is undergoing a similar experience. He is having a spiritual vision. Spirit is communicating with his spirit. He doesn’t need the angel to verbally explain to him the meaning of every phenomenon he observes. He perceives things by the light of the Spirit as the vision unfolds. No prop, no “Asherah” mythology is needed to explain his ability to “know” things without being “told”.

Even the language used to describe her echoes that used for the tree. Just as she was “exceedingly fair and white,” “most beautiful and fair above all other virgins,” so was the tree’s beauty “far beyond, yea, exceeding of all beauty; and the whiteness thereof did exceed the whiteness of the driven snow.”

The linguistic similarities are incidental. It is hardly adequate to make the connection, in the light of all the evidence against it.

Significantly, though, only when she appeared with a baby and was identified as “the mother of the Son of God” did Nephi grasp the tree’s meaning.

Not so! He grasps the meaning when he is told by the angel: “Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! . . .” (1 Nephi 11:21.) The connection is made with the “Lamb of God,” not with Mary.

Why would Nephi see a connection between a tree and the virginal mother of a divine child?

The answer is that he doesn’t!

His vision seems to reflect a meaning of the “sacred tree” that is unique to the ancient Near East and, in Israelite history, specifically to the period before the Babylonian captivity — Nephi’s era. This can only be fully appreciated when the ancient Canaanite and Israelite associations of that tree are borne in mind. . . .

The rest of his article basically becomes irrelevant from this point forward. Whether the Asherah mythology has, or ever has had an element of truth behind it, or whether it is just a myth pure and simple, I wouldn’t know, and I don’t think it is a significant factor in the discussion. Ancient cultures are full of mythologies of various kinds, some of which may or may not have been based on forgotten truths. I personally don’t think my time would be well spent trying to sift through them, a pursuit that is unlikely to ever lead to the discovery of undiluted truth. The rest of Nephi’s teachings in chapter 11, however, are worth examining in more detail:

24 And after he had said these words, he said unto me: Look! And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men; and I saw many fall down at his feet and worship him.

25 And it came to pass that I beheld that the rod of iron, which my father had seen, was the word of God, which led to the fountain of living waters, or to the tree of life; which waters are a representation of the love of God; and I also beheld that the tree of life was a representation of the love of God.

26 And the angel said unto me again: Look and behold the condescension of God!

27 And I looked and beheld the Redeemer of the world, of whom my father had spoken; . . .

28 And I beheld that he went forth ministering unto the people, in power and great glory; and the multitudes were gathered together to hear him; and I beheld that they cast him out from among them. . . .

32 And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I looked and beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record.

33 And I, Nephi, saw that he was lifted up upon the cross and slain for the sins of the world.

That is what is meant by the “condescension of God,” and that is the real meaning of the symbolism of the tree. The word “condescend” (and its derivatives) as used in the biblical language of the KJV, do not have the negative connotations associated with it in modern English. Paul, for example, counsels the saints, “Mind not high things, but condescend to men of low estate” (Romans 12:16). What he means by that is to humble oneself to bring oneself down to the level of the common man, rather than aspire to those of high station in society because of wealth or privilege. It is another way of saying, “Don’t be class conscious!” It means, “Don’t stay aloof from the common people because you consider yourself better than them because of high birth, wealth, high intelligence, or privilege in society”. When Jesus washed his disciples’ feet, that was a great act of “condescension” on His part. He did it in order to set an example for them, so that they should do likewise. This is the explanation He gave after washing their feet:

John 13:

13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.

14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.

15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

Washing people’s feet in those days was degrading task that would have been assigned to the lowliest servant. No king, ruler, lord, or master would have stooped so low as to wash his own servant’s feet. Jesus by this great act of “condescension” sets them an example to follow. Jesus elsewhere teaches the same doctrine in these words:

Luke 22:

24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

27 For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.

However, Jesus’ greatest act of “condescension” was in leaving his father’s throne in heaven as the God of gods and Lord of lords, to come down to earth and be born as a mortal, keep company with us and instruct us at our own level, and ultimately offer Himself as a willing sacrifice for the sins of all the world, and the great love that was manifested by the Father and the Son by this tremendous sacrifice. There are many scriptures that in various ways refer to this great act of “condescension” by the Father and the Son. Here are some:

John 3:

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

Philippians 2:

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

1 John 4:

9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.

10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.

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.

6 And he shall cast out devils, or the evil spirits which dwell in the hearts of the children of men.

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

D&C 138:

2 And reflecting upon the great atoning sacrifice that was made by the Son of God, for the redemption of the world;

3 And the great and wonderful love made manifest by the Father and the Son in the coming of the Redeemer into the world;

4 That through his atonement, and by obedience to the principles of the gospel, mankind might be saved.

That was the great “condescension” that Nephi was talking about: the great love that was manifested by the Father and the Son in sending the Redeemer into the world to save the world by His death. The tree represents that love of God that was manifested through that act of “condescension”. That is what the vision of the “virgin mother and child” was intended to convey to Nephi. It is a representation of that “love” manifested by God in the coming of Christ into the world to humble Himself as the common man, and die to redeem all mankind. The symbolism of the tree has nothing to do with Mary at all.

Daniel also has a secondary thesis to his article, in addition to the primary one discussed above. He hopes, and expects, that his reasoning provides evidence that the Book of Mormon is an “ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition”. Well, I agree that the Book of Mormon is an ancient historical record in the Semitic tradition. As a Latter-day Saint I firmly believe that that is the case. But I don’t see that Daniel’s paper provides evidence in support of that claim. His article fails on both accounts. If “Asherah” was the last thing that Nephi had in mind as he saw and understood the vision of the three of life, then his secondary thesis fails just as his primary one does.

Answering Those Who Slander Joseph Smith

There are some anti-Mormons who, when they run out of all other arguments against Mormonism, they turn to slandering Joseph Smith. The Muslims have a proverb that says: “The waters of the sea do not become unclean by the mouth of the dog.” Their slandering of Joseph Smith does not hurt him, it only hurts them. Jesus knew that His true followers would suffer such abuses at the hands of the wicked, and gave them these assurances:

Matthew 5:

11 Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.

They play part well by slandering Joseph Smith; and he also played his part well by being the great prophet of the Lord that he was, and a martyr to the cause of truth. Such folks of course have been from the beginning. Jude had this to say about such people of his day:

Jude 1:

8 Likewise also these filthy dreamers defile the flesh, despise dominion, and speak evil of dignities.

9 Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

10 But these speak evil of those things which they know not: but what they know naturally, as brute beasts, in those things they corrupt themselves.

11 Woe unto them! for they have gone in the way of Cain, and ran greedily after the error of Balaam for reward, and perished in the gainsaying of Core.

12 These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;

13 Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.

Even Jesus was called Beelzebub by His detractors; so why should Joseph Smith escape the tongue of slanderers and detractors of this generation? This is what Jesus had to say to those who called Him Beelzebub:

Matthew 12:

31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.

32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

35 A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.

36 But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Joseph Smith was no different. He was in the same situation as they were, so it is to be expected that he should receive the same treatment as they did. To him the Lord said:

D&C 122:

1 The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee;

2 While the pure in heart, and the wise, and the noble, and the virtuous, shall seek counsel, and authority, and blessings constantly from under thy hand.

In another place the Lord said to him:

D&C 121:

10 Thou art not yet as Job; thy friends do not contend against thee, neither charge thee with transgression, as they did Job.

11 And they who do charge thee with transgression, their hope shall be blasted, and their prospects shall melt away as the hoar frost melteth before the burning rays of the rising sun;

12 And also that God hath set his hand and seal to change the times and seasons, and to blind their minds, that they may not understand his marvelous workings; that he may prove them also and take them in their own craftiness;

. . .

16 Cursed are all those that shall lift up the heel against mine anointed, saith the Lord, and cry they have sinned when they have not sinned before me, saith the Lord, but have done that which was meet in mine eyes, and which I commanded them.

17 But those who cry transgression do it because they are the servants of sin, and are the children of disobedience themselves.

President George A. Smith once said the following of those who slander and malign Joseph Smith:

“Many have belittled Joseph Smith, but those who have will be forgotten in the remains of mother earth, and the odor of their infamy will ever be with them, but honor, majesty, and fidelity to God, exemplified by Joseph Smith and attached to his name, will never die.” (Quoted by Harold B. Lee in “Closing Remarks,” Ensign, Jan. 1974, 125.)

LDS need not be troubled by those who slander and speak evil of against Joseph Smith. No prophet was ever harmed by the slander of wicked. Such folks have always only hurt themselves, never the prophets of God.

Can Anyone See God?

 

Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints like to quote verses such as the following to suggest that God cannot be seen, therefore Joseph Smith’s claims to have seen God cannot be true:

Exodus 33:

20 And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.

John 1:

18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

John 6:

46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

Colossians 1:

15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

The number of scriptures, however, that teach that man can see, or has seen God are more numerous than those which say that he can’t:

Genesis 18:

1 And the Lord appeared unto him [Abraham] in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;

2 And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood by him: and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the tent door, and bowed himself toward the ground,

A close reading of the context of the above verses reveals that one of the “three men” who appeared to Abraham was indeed God, and the other two were the two angels who went on to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, and rescued Lot. God stayed behind and continued to converse with Abraham, as recorded in the book of Genesis. God was on such familiar terms with Abraham that He used to come and visit Him at his tent like a guest! That is how Abraham gained the reputation of being the “friend of God” (2 Chronicles 20:7; Isaiah 41:8; James 2:23). Here are some more examples:

Genesis 32:

30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.

Exodus 24:

9 Then went up Moses, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel:

10 And they saw the God of Israel: and there was under his feet as it were a paved work of a sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in his clearness.

11 And upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his hand: also they saw God, and did eat and drink.

Judges 13:

22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.

1 Kings 22:

19 And he said, Hear thou therefore the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne, and all the host of heaven standing by him on his right hand and on his left.

2 Chronicles 18:

18 Again he said, Therefore hear the word of the Lord; I saw the Lord sitting upon his throne, and all the host of heaven standing on his right hand and on his left.

Isaiah 6:

1 In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.

Amos 9:

1 I Saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword: he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered.

Matthew 5:

8 Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

That is a ratio of around two to one in favor of seeing God than not seeing Him! Obviously the question that arises here is how to reconcile this apparent contradiction. But that is a different subject matter. The most immediate conclusion is that the Bible is overwhelmingly in favor of man seeing God rather than not seeing Him. Interestingly, modern LDS scripture confirms this doctrine, of which the following are a small selection:

Ether 3:

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

D&C 67:

11 For no man has seen God at any time in the flesh, except quickened by the Spirit of God.

12 Neither can any natural man abide the presence of God, neither after the carnal mind.

D&C 88:

68 Therefore, sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God, and the days will come that you shall see him; for he will unveil his face unto you, and it shall be in his own time, and in his own way, and according to his own will.

D&C 93:

1 Verily, thus saith the Lord: It shall come to pass that every soul who forsaketh his sins and cometh unto me, and calleth on my name, and obeyeth my voice, and keepeth my commandments, shall see my face and know that I am;

D&C 107:

49 And he [Enoch] saw the Lord, and he walked with him, and was before his face continually; and he walked with God three hundred and sixty-five years, making him four hundred and thirty years old when he was translated.

Moses 7:

4 And I saw the Lord; and he stood before my face, and he talked with me, even as a man talketh one with another, face to face; and he said unto me: Look, and I will show unto thee the world for the space of many generations.

Abraham 3:

11 Thus I, Abraham, talked with the Lord, face to face, as one man talketh with another; and he told me of the works which his hands had made;

Interestingly, modern LDS scripture also provides an answer to the contradiction mentioned above. Why does the Bible appear to contradict itself on whether one can see God or not? Joseph Smith made an inspired translation or revision of the Bible in which many of those apparent contradictions are clarified. Here they are (the words in italics were added by Joseph Smith):

Exodus 33:20 is rendered by Joseph Smith as follows:

And he said unto Moses, Thou canst not see my face at this time, lest mine anger be kindled against thee also, and I destroy thee, and thy people; for there shall no man among them see me at this time, and live, for they are exceeding sinful. And no sinful man hath at any time, neither shall there be any sinful man at any time, that shall see my face and live.

And John 1:18 as follows:

And no man hath seen God at any time, except he hath borne record of the Son; for except it is through him no man can be saved.