Strong Reasons

New Blog Address

2008-10-26T10:43:00.001-06:00

My new blog is here: http://strongreasons.wordpress.com/

I'll be moving some of my favorite posts from here to there and my blogging will be done there from here on. Please visit me there! Anyone who has linked to this blog, please update the address.

Goodbye, google!

Google Opposes Prop. 8

2008-10-23T12:29:00.004-06:00

http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/our-position-on-californias-no-on-8.html

Google officially opposes Proposition 8. As a consequence, I will no longer be using their services. This blog, unfortunately, is owned by google. I will, therefore, be closing down and moving my blog to a different owner who does not publicly push the gay agenda.

If any of you who support Prop. 8 have a blog with blogger.com, I would suggest you do the same. Google is making money through our blog usage. The money they make is then used to support a cause we don't believe in.

Best Wishes,

Andrew Miller

PS I will shortly announce where my new blog will be located.

Human Sacrifice

2008-10-11T10:40:00.000-06:00

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. (Alma 34:10)

First, does this scripture seem to imply that the Zoramits were familiar with human sacrifice?

Second, Does this fit into a Mesoamerican, Ancient Near East, or 19th century rural USA world view best?

Redefining Marriage

2008-10-10T13:04:00.000-06:00

Well, Connecticut has joined the club. When will judges stop legislating from the bench? Is the constitution hanging by a thread?

Bible Translations

2008-09-20T15:05:00.002-06:00

It isn't uncommon for critics to suggest that all Bible translations are essentially the same. While I certainly think that all major translations have some validity (I am not a KJV-only supporter), I do not believe that there aren't major differences here and there. Occasionally, some translations show real bias. While I, overall, applaud the New International Version (NIV), it certainly has some problems. Consider the following:

For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. (NIV 1 Peter 4:6)

Did Jesus preach the gospel to people after they died, or before? The NIV adds the word "now" which does not exist in any Greek manuscript of this verse. Notwithstanding the volumes of information from early Christianity about posthumous preaching and salvation (see HERE), the NIV study Bible note asserts that this edition to the text was made because “it is necessary to make it clear that the preaching was done not after these people had died, but while they were still alive.” The note then dogmatically asserts, “There will be no opportunity for people to be saved after death.”

Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, (NIV Philippians 2:6)

Compared to:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God (KJV Philippians 2:6)

Did Jesus think it was reasonable to be equal with God ("thought it not robbery") or not? Was Jesus "in very nature God" (a loose translation at best!) or "in the form of God"? The NIV is clearly translating the creeds into the text.

Keep these verses in mind the next time someone criticizes the statement that "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly."

Ante-Nicene Mysteries and Their New Testament Sources

2008-09-07T19:59:00.004-06:00

Here is a rough draft of the paper I'll be presenting this November at the Sane Symposium.

It is a rough rough draft. So, it has a way to go still, but I thought I'd show you what I've been working on.

Pillar of Fire and the First Vision

2008-08-22T10:45:00.006-06:00

I recently bought all 6 volumes of Second Witness: Analytical & Contextual Commentary on the Book of Mormon by Brant A. Gardner. I've only read about 100 pages of the first volume so far, but I am highly impressed. I do not agree with every take Brother Gardner has on different issues, but I have found it very insightful with very useful information and references. It's like someone has pulled together into one place all of the scholarly information on the Book of Mormon. I highly recommend it.

Gardner cites John Welch in his commentary on Lehi's vision in 1 Nephi 1 in specific reference to the pillar of fire that came down "and dwelt upon a rock before him" (1 Nephi 1:6-7):

As Lehi prayed, he beheld a pillar of fire dwelling upon a rock in front of him. From this pillar Lehi saw and heard many powerful things, but Nephi does not elaborate on who or what Lehi saw in this pillar of fire. Joseph Smith described how God, angels, and spirits appear in fiery manifestations; he taught, for instance, "spirits can only be revealed in flaming fire and glory." From ancient sources, too, one learns that the appearance of fire, especially a pillar of fire, was a frequent mode of heavenly manifestation, sometimes of God and other times of his messengers or of the holy beings who surrounded him. (Cited in Gardner, Second Witness, Vol. 1, page 68).

After reading this, something came to my remembrance--Joseph Smith's first recorded recollection of the First Vision.

[T]he Lord heard my cry in the wilderness and while in < the > attitude of calling upon the Lord < in the 16th [15th?] year of my age > a pillar of ~~fire~~ light above the brightness of the sun at noon day come down from above and rested upon me and I was filled with the spirit of god and the < Lord > opened the heavens upon me and I saw the Lord... (Joseph Smith, "A History of the Life of Joseph Smith," in Joseph Smith Letterbook 1).

The Prophet struggled to describe what he saw. He first wrote that he saw a "pillar of fire" but then crossed out "fire" and replaced it with "light."

On another occasion he related his experience to the "prophet Matthias" who claimed he was "Joshua the Jewish Minister:"

A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me, and filled me with un-speakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee. He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication... (see http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml)

In an account written by Orson Pratt, he state that Joseph thought the trees would burn up:

He expected to have seen the leaves and boughs of the trees consumed, as soon as the light came in contact with them; but perceiving that it did not produce that effect, he was encouraged with the hope of being able to endure its presence. It continued descending slowly, until it rested upon the earth, and he was enveloped in the midst of it. (see http://www.lds-mormon.com/fv.shtml)

This isn't earth shattering or anything, just thought it was interesting that Joseph Smith's accounts of the vision, like Lehi's account in the Book of Mormon, accurately portray the pillar of fire concept.

Eloquent Witness

2008-08-12T16:08:00.003-06:00

I recently bought Hugh Nibley's latest book entitled "Eloquent Witness: Nibley on Himself, Others, and the Temple" (See HERE). It's a good thing that something so little as death hasn't slowed Brother Nibley's publishing down! Let me give you a little preview of the Book here.

It is well known that Hugh Nibley was the LDS apologist of all time. It's a little less well known that he had some really critical things to say, at times, about the church as an institution. Notwithstanding his criticism, he always sustained his leaders. An interview reported in the book contains, in part, the following:

MIDGLEY: Are you concerned with the leadership of the Church?
NIBLEY: Nope, not a bit. I certainly am not. The leadership of the Church is Jesus Christ, and he know what he is doing. Don't worry.
MIDGLEY: I am tempted to ask you if you would sustain Judas?
NIBLEY: Of course I would sustain Judas. He was on of the apostles.
MIDGLEY: But he was a devil.
NIBLEY: Remember what the Lord said. "I [have] chosen you twelve, and one of you is a devil" (John 6:70). But he chose him. The Lord has his purposes in these things. If we sustained only perfect people, we wouldn't sustain anybody. The Lord has his purposes in these things.(p. 40)

I really like this philosophy. I've had church leaders before who really didn't see things the same way I do. Some of the "brethren" at times have seen things differently than I do. I'm not saying that any of them are "Judas" (so to speak), but should I not sustain them? Isn't it Jesus' Church? If Christ calls someone who isn't perfect, or even someone who is wicked, to a position over me, who am I to oppose it?

What think ye?

Kefa--a seer stone?

2008-08-04T20:32:00.003-06:00

When Jesus met Simon son of Jona, he gave him a new name--Cephas. "Cephas" (Aramaic--kefa) is the equivalent of "Peter." The name means "stone." According to Hugh Nibley, kefa is an Aramaic word that refers to a green crystal used for divination. In other words, kefa doesn't just mean "stone" but more precisely it means "seer stone."

The Joseph Smith Translation of John 1:42 is more interesting now, isn't it?

"And [Andrew] brought [Peter] to Jesus, and When Jesus beheld him, he said, Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is, by interpretation, a seer, or a stone..."

So, two questions:

Is Hugh Nibley right about kefa?
If so, how do you explain Joseph Smith's uncanny ability to get these things right?

Study it Out in Your Mind Part 2

2008-08-02T10:06:00.004-06:00

Not only do LDS believe that we must study LDS teachings out in our mind before we can receive confirming revelation from God, but the scriptures teach that revelation comes to our mind.

"Yea, behold, I will tell you in your mind and in your heart, by the Holy Ghost, which shall come upon you and which shall dwell in your heart." (D&C 8:2)

I have found that one of the ways I can distinguish personal revelation from my own thoughts or emotions is by noticing if the revelation comes to my mind and my heart. I ask myself, Does it makes sense? Does it seem right? Does it enlighten my understanding? Does it taste good?

"Now, we will compare the word unto a seed. Now, if ye give place, that a seed may be planted in your heart, behold, if it be a true seed, or a good seed, if ye do not cast it out by your unbelief, that ye will resist the Spirit of the Lord, behold, it will begin to swell within your breasts; and when you feel these swelling motions, ye will begin to say within yourselves—It must needs be that this is a good seed, or that the word is good, for it beginneth to enlarge my soul; yea, it beginneth to enlighten my understanding, yea, it beginneth to be delicious to me." (Alma 32:28)

To say that the mind or understanding has no place in the "Mormon testimony" is another false caricature of anti-Mormons. Mormonism teaches that "studying it out in your mind" is a prerequisite to gaining revelation that comes to "the heart AND the mind" and that "enlightens our understanding." It's not "just feelings."

You Must Study It Out in Your Mind

2008-07-30T20:30:00.002-06:00

It is a straw man argument to claim that we LDS base our belief on “feelings” alone without any thought based on some magical prayer given on some solitary occasion. As a matter of fact, according to our own doctrine it can’t happen that way. A section in the Doctrine and Covenants says:

“Behold, you have not understood; you have supposed that I would give it unto you, when you took no thought save it was to ask me. But, behold, I say unto you, that you must study it out in your mind; then you must ask me if it be right, and if it is right I will cause that your bosom shall burn within you; therefore, you shall feel that it is right.” (D&C 9:7-8)

My testimony of the divine calling of Joseph Smith as a prophet and of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as being the restoration of primitive Christianity has come in this way. To suggest that LDS testimony is built on some post-movie like emotions without any thought or study is blatantly false. As for me, my testimony is the product largely of much thought, study, pondering, and prayer. Such truth-confirming revelation doesn’t come in a vacuum, but comes as a natural reward for our efforts to commune with and understand God.

“If any man wants to do God’s will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God or whether I speak on my own authority.” (John 7:17). That’s what Jesus taught. I can tell you that there has never been a person who has wanted to know and do God’s will more than I, and I can confirm that God has confirmed in me that the fullness of the everlasting gospel is exclusively found in the teachings and practices of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Mathematicks Proves thuh Bible Truew!

2008-07-26T10:27:00.005-06:00

I've gotten into an interesting conversation with some circular reasoning professionals HERE.

Check out the comment section.

Insight on the "Rapture"

2008-07-20T21:08:00.005-06:00

About a year ago I was involved in a rather intense discussion with a few anti-Mormons in Missouri. My dad was present. A discussion of the "rapture" (a non-Biblical term) came up. Matthew 24 was cited:

40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
42Watch therefore: for ye know not what hour your Lord doth come.

This scripture is commonly used to say that the righteous will be taken up into heaven while the wicked will stay on earth during the "tribulation" (another non-Biblical term). This is even seen on some bumper stickers.

But what does the context of the verse say? Thanks to my dad for pointing this out:

Who is to be taken? The context makes that clear.

37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
39And knew not until the flood came, and took them [the wicked] all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
40Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left.
41Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

It is the wicked who will be "taken" away in death, just as in the days of Noah.

Spiritual Gifts

2008-07-20T21:01:00.002-06:00

It's been a while since I have posted here. A lot has been going on lately!

Today we got a new bishop. Yesterday, on two occasions, the thought came to me "tomorrow we're getting a new bishop." I didn't know what to make of the thought. Was it all in my head, or was it from above? I've had similar experiences before with other events that happened such as the passing away of a man I hadn't seen in years.

The Lord told Oliver Cowdery that revelation comes to our minds and our hearts (see D&C 8:2). For me it generally comes to my mind as thoughts or impressions that seem indistinguishable from my own thoughts. I realize this has little to do with apologetics, but I'd love your input. How do you come to distinguish between the two? What is the purpose of such insights (like, "we're getting a new bishop tomorrow" or "Brother Lowery will be joining his wife soon")? Spiritual gifts, we are told, are for the benefit of the members of the church (see D&C 46:9). Are some gifts just for our own personal benefit as well?

What Does the Word "Telestial" Mean?

2008-07-07T22:06:00.003-06:00

The word "telestial" is not found in the dictionary now nor was it in 1831 when it was first recorded in D&C 76. So, it is not possible to know what it means with absolute certainty.

However, I think "telestial" may be derived from the Greek word telos which means "the end, complete/finish, full, perfect" etc. It is used in connection with the Telestial Kingdom because it is the last resurrection of the saved that happens at the end of the world when Jesus has completed and perfected his work. I think this is evident in the following verse from the New Testament:

22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
23 But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming.
24 Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power(1 Cor. 15:22-24).

My commentary on these verses:

All be made alive] All will be resurrected just like Jesus was.
In his own order] The word for order refers to temporal order or rank. Each person will be resurrected in the order or according to their rank in salvation.
Christ the firstfruits] Christ is the first to be resurrected in time, he is also the highest in rank.
afterward they that are Christ’s at his coming] The next to be resurrected are those who are resurrected at Christ's second coming. This is the first resurrection which consists of those who are resurrected in the morning (the heirs of the celestial kingdom) and those who are resurrected afterwards (the Terrestial Kingdom).
Then cometh the end] "The end" is "telos" in the Greek. Then (after the other resurrections) comes the "telos" resurrection. This is where the word telestial comes from. It occurs after the millennium when Christ "shall have delivered up the kingdom to God..." It denotes completion, ending, perfection.

With this understanding, D&C 76 takes on a new meaning.

"[Telestial inhabitants] are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work" (D&C 76:85)

"[Telestial inhabitants] are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work; when he shall deliver up the kingdom, and present it unto the Father [cf. 1 Cor. 15:24] " (D&C 76:106-107)

A Few Plugs

2008-07-05T14:24:00.002-06:00

Most of you don't need me to tell you how great these blogs are, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Under "links" at the left you'll see these blogs.

American Testament is run by a young acquaintance of mine and deals mostly with the Book of Mormon. It is a great blog with some great insights. I highly recommend it.

Lehi's Library is a great blog that deals with all different kinds of apologetic and scholarly research. It is very good!

Life on Gold Plates is an insightful commentary on the Journal of Discourses by a friend who is working his way through the 26 volume set.

Temple Study is a fascinating blog about the temple and its connections to ancient traditions and practices throughout the world. It is very insightful.

There all of the links I've put up I think are valuable blogs that I frequent. Please check them out! I'm sure each of the authors will appreciate your visit.

Joseph and Hyrum: Prophets of God

2008-06-27T13:20:00.000-06:00

Ye heav’ns attend! Let all the earth give ear!
Let Gods and seraphs, men and angels hear-
The worlds on high-the universe shall know
What awful scenes are acted here below!
Had nature’s self a heart, her heart would bleed;
For never, since the Son of God was slain
Had blood so noble, flow’d from human vein
As that which now, on God for vengeance calls
From “freedom’s ground”-from Carthage prison walls!
Oh! Illinois! thy soil has drank the blood
Of Prophets martyr’d for the truth of God.
Once lov’d America! what can atone
For the pure blood of innocence, thou’st sown?
Were all thy streams in teary torrents shed
To mourn the fate of those illustrious dead;
How vain the tribute, for the noblest worth
That grac’d thy surface, O degraded Earth!
Oh wretched murd’rers! fierce for human blood!
You’ve slain the prophets of the living God,
Who’ve borne oppression from their early youth.
To plant on earth, the principles of truth.
Shades of our patriotic fathers! Can it be,
Beneath your blood stain’d flag of liberty;
The firm supporters of our country’s cause,
Are butcher’d while submissive to her laws?
yes, blameless men, defam’d by hellish lies
have thus been offer’d as a sacrifice
T’appease the ragings of a brutish clan,
That has defied the laws of God and man!
‘Twas not for crime or guilt of theirs, they fell-
Against the laws they never did rebel.
True to their country, yet her plighted faith
Has prov’d an instrument of cruel death!
Where are thy far-fam’d laws-Columbia! where
Thy boasted freedom-thy protecting care?
Is this a land of rights” Stern FACTS shall say
If legal justice here maintains its sway,
The official pow’rs of State are sheer pretence
When they’re exerted in the Saints’ defence.
Great men have fall’n and mighty men have died
Nations have mourn’d their fav’rites and their pride;
But TWO, so wise, so virtuous, great and good,
Before on earth, at once, have never stood
Since the creation-men whom God ordain’d
To publish truth where error long had reigned;
Of whom the world, itself unworthy prov’d:
It KNEW THEM NOT; but men with hatred mov’d
And with infernal spirits have combin’d
Against the best, the noblest of mankind!
Oh persecution! shall thy purple hand
Spread utter destruction through the land?
Shall freedom’s banner be no more unfurled?
Has peace indeed, been taken from the world?
Thou God of Jacob, in this trying hour
Help us to trust in thy almighty pow’r;
Support thy Saints beneath this awful stroke
Make bare thine arm to break oppression’s yoke.
We mourn thy Prophet, from whose lips have flow’d
The words of life, thy spirit has bestow’d-
A depth of thought, no human art could reach
From time to time, roll’d in sublimest speech,
From the celestial fountain, through his mind,
To purify and elevate mankind:
The rich intelligence by him brought forth,
Is like the sun-beam, spreading o’er the earth.
Now Zion mourns-she mourns an earthly head;
The Prophet and Patriarch are dead!
The blackest deed that men or devils know
Since Calv’ry’s scene, has laid the brothers low!
One in their life, and one in death-they prov’d
How strong their friendship-how they truly lov’d;
True to their mission, until death, they stood,
Then seal’d their testimony with their blood.
All hearts with sorrow bleed, and ev’ry eye
Is bath’d in tears-each bosom heaves a sigh-
Hart broken widow’s agonizing groans
Are mingled with the helpless orphans’ moans!
Ye Saints! be still, and know that God is just
With steadfast purpose in his promise trust;
Girded with sackcloth, own his mighty hand,
And with his judgments on this guilty land!
The noble martyrs now have gone to move
The cause of Zion in the courts above.
Nauvoo, July 1, 1844.[1]

______

[1] Eliza R. Snow, “The Assassination of Gen’ls Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith, First Presidents of the Church of Latter Day Saints; Who were Massacred by a Mob, Hancock County, Ill., on the 27th of June 1844,” Times and Seasons, July 1, 1844, 575.

The Fruit of the Tree of Life and Eternal Life

2008-06-19T16:06:00.005-06:00

Lehi saw a vision of the Tree of Life (See 1 Nephi 8). In his vision he saw some pressing forward until they arrived at the tree and tasted its fruit. Some of them "after they had tasted of the fruit...were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost" (1 Nephi 8:28).

Nephi, the son of Lehi, wished to "know the things that [his] father had seen" (1 Nephi 10:1) and then had a glorious vision recorded in 1 Nephi 11-14. After his vision, he explained the vision to his brothers in 1 Nephi 15. At the close of his explanation of the vision he had something quite remarkable to say:

Wherefore, the wicked are rejected from the righteous, and also from that tree of life, whose fruit is most precious and most desirable above all other fruits; yea, and it [i.e., the fruit] is the greatest of all the gifts of God (1 Nephi 15:36).

This should make any LDS seminary graduate to raise his eyebrows. What is the greatest of all the gifts of God?

The Doctrine and Covenants states that "eternal life...is the greatest of all the gifts of God" and also that "there is no greater gift than the gift of salvation" (14:7; 6:13). So salvation or eternal life is the greatest gift a child of God can receive, and this is synonymous with the fruit of the tree of life!

So, apparently some can partake of the fruit of the tree of life (which is eternal life or salvation) and then fall away. Since this life is the time to prepare to meet God, and since salvation cannot be lost after death, in what ways can we partake of eternal life and salvation in this life?

PS. There are a few Biblical references to having "eternal life" in this life. I won't point them out to you specifically, but they're there.

Mormonism Has Another Jesus?

2008-06-12T19:04:00.003-06:00

This is a letter I wrote and sent a couple of years ago while living near Lexington, Virginia. I never received a response or acknowledgment of any sort.

I might add, I tried to use the same sort of rhetoric and judgment passing that their tract contained in sort of a mocking way. I don't know if it really came through.

Enjoy.

------------------------------------------

Fellowship Tract League
P.O. Box 164
Lebanon, OH 45036

May 28, 2006

To Whom It May Concern:

“Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.” Thus God’s voice thundered from Mount Sinai. I write this to you in a spirit of meekness, kindness and out of pure love. As custodians of the truth of God, at times it is expedient to reprove the sinful actions of others out of love and concern for the salvation of their souls. It is in this spirit that I write this letter to you. As followers of Christ, I am confident that you will take the time to read and respond to this letter.

Yesterday, May 27, I discovered a tract published by the Fellowship Tract League on the shelf at a local business entitled “Mormonism has Another Jesus.” It is an unfortunate and misguided attempt to explain the basic tenets of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to arouse feelings of hatred and misunderstanding towards Mormons. I will here address a few of the many inconsistencies and false witness found in this tract. You may believe Mormonism to be a false religion, and it is by all means your right to preach against it, but I believe it to be sinful to do so by purposeful manipulation of the facts and through lies.

The overall tone of the tract is degrading. The first three words exemplify that fact. There is no organization on the face of the earth named “The Mormon Church.” The proper name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In order to be more scholarly and less degrading, it would be proper to reverse the word order of the sentence from “The Mormon church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)” to “The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (or the Mormons).”

The second paragraph says that the LDS Church denies the virgin birth and that the Holy Ghost begot Christ. Latter-day Saints do reject that the Holy Ghost begot Christ, but they do not reject the virgin birth. The scriptures cited in the tract (Matt. 1:18-25, Luke 1:26-35) do not say the Holy Ghost begot Christ. That the Holy Ghost played an important role in the process is made clear, but the scripture says that Christ is the “Son of God” and “the Son of the Highest.” Latter-day Saints reject that the Holy Ghost was Christ’s Father and accept the clear statement of scripture that the Highest, the Most High God was Christ’s Father. Surely we are not in disagreement concerning this thing

The pamphlet quotes Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie in an attempt to support the unfounded statement that “the Mormon Jesus was begotten by a sexual relationship between Mary and God the Father.” However, under “Virgin Birth” in Mormon Doctrine we find the following statement:

Our Lord is the only mortal person ever born to a virgin...Modernistic teachings denying the virgin birth are utterly and completely apostate and false (Mormon Doctrine, 822).

As you can clearly see Mormons do not believe that the Father and Mary had sexual relations. She was a virgin and any other teachings are considered “utterly and completely apostate and false.” Now, the tract says Mormons believe otherwise. Is this done in ignorance of the clear and unequivocal statement found under “Virgin Birth” in Mormon Doctrine? If it is not done in ignorance, then the author of the tract is purposefully baring false witness against his neighbor. If it was done in ignorance, then the error has now been brought to your attention and you are compelled to correct it or you will now be baring false witness with full knowledge of the truth. I call upon you to correct the tract and/or repent or you will be held responsible before Almighty God.

The tract continues to be deceitful when it states, “to a Mormon, Jesus is merely ‘an important member of the Godhead.’” The obvious use of the word “merely” is to imply that Mormons reject that Christ is fully divine or that He is God. However, this is not true. The use of quotation marks makes it appear to be some sort of a citation of a LDS reference, however it is not. However, this is clearly not the case.

The Book of Mormon states in very clear terms that “JESUS is the CHRIST, the ETERNAL GOD” (Title page), “the Lord Omnipotent who reigneth, who was, and is from all eternity to all eternity” (Mosiah 3:5), “The Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning” (Mosiah 3:8), “the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth,” (Mosiah 15:4) and “God himself” (Mosiah 15:1), etc.

The tract then compares the events, such as the earthquakes and storms, surrounding Christ’s death and resurrection in the land of Jerusalem and Israel with those events mentioned in the Book of Mormon that took place in the Americas. Obviously they are talking about two different places. It is a well established and scientific fact that everyone knows that you can have massive earthquakes, storms, fires, tornadoes, etc in one part of the world while the another part of the world might be passing through a time of complete peace and prosperity. There is no conflict in the two accounts for any rational and intelligent human being. This is a rather pathetic attempt to slander the Book of Mormon account in an illogical way in order to promote further misunderstanding. Once again, this is baring false witness.

There are many more things that could be said and written about this tract. It is nothing less than lies, slander, and misrepresentation in print. The Jesus of the Bible spent his time lifting up those around him, caring for their burdens and bringing them peace. This tract represents, ultimately, a different Jesus than the Jesus of the Bible. It is full of hatred, lies, and is a poor attempt to tear down the religion of another. Have you not anything to offer? Wouldn’t it be better to offer what you have in an attempt to save the souls of man than to tear down what others have? In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Jesus of the Bible, I call you to repentance or my testimony will stand as a bright witness against you at the day of the great white throne judgment. May you repent and may God have mercy on you is my humble and heartfelt prayer.

In Jesus’ Name,

(signed) Andrew Miller

PS. Please feel free to respond. I sincerely hope that you will correct the tract’s errors or to stop printing it. If not, lest I bear witness to God at the last day that you are guilty of false witness against my beliefs, please try to justify what the pamphlet says. Further, don’t try to tell me what I believe. I know what I believe. My beliefs, as a Latter-day Saint, are not accurately represented in the tract.

Contra Poligamia

2008-06-05T22:51:00.003-06:00

My wife and I bumped into a young lady ("Kristi") with children at deseret book today. She related to us that her husband is associating with a polygamist sect and that she was looking for something to try to help the situation. A conversation ensued, we exchanged email addresses, and I sent her the following email. What would you add?

----------------------------------

Kristi,

My wife and I enjoyed meeting you and your children today at Deseret Book. I have thought long and hard about what book or material might give you the information you seek. What mostly comes to mind, however, are bits and pieces of stuff from here and there. I do not wish to intrude or violate your privacy in any way, but I wish to be as helpful as I can be in any way.

By way of disclaimer, I do not pretend to have the answers to everything nor do I believe I have any right to tell you what to think or what to do except as you give me permission. You and your priesthood leaders are entitled to receive revelation and direction for you and your family while I am not. However, I sincerely believe the Lord often puts people in our path who needs our help or who we can help. So, I will try to offer any help I can if it be agreeable with you and the Spirit.

Also, I do not believe I know more than you or am more informed in anyway. I do not wish to ever give you the impression that I'm talking down to you in any way. If I ever come across strongly, it's not meant to offend in any way.

I know there are about a thousand things you're thinking about and trying to understand. Out of all of them, what would you say is the most troublesome?

While thinking about "Mormon fundamentalism" (a total misnomer!) and the situation you find yourself in, I have had the following thoughts. Please forgive any typos or grammar problems

Testimony. As you research and study, you will uncover things you may not understand. That's okay! I've found that often I have much to learn and understand. Don't be afraid of new knowledge. However (and this is very important!), don't discard what you do know because of what you don't know. I image that you, like myself, have read the Book of Mormon and have come to a conviction that it is indeed true. I imagine you have received a witness that The Church of Jesus Christ of LDS is Christ's true Church. Don't ever betray those things in a moment of uncertainty. This is the most important thing I could ever say to you on the topic.

Authority. A basic and essential part of the gospel of Jesus Christ is priesthood authority. Priesthood authority comes by revelation and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority before a person can administer the ordinances of the gospel (Article of Faith 1:5). D&C 42 is termed "the law of the Church." It defines church organization, practice, discipline, and so forth. One important, emphatic verse reads "Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church" (verse 11). This verse alone should destroy all pretense to authority for the splinter groups. "it shall not be given.." means not now, not then, not ever. All splinter groups claim authority from some secret ordination by a man or an angel when the Lord himself has said it cannot happen that way! One must receive priesthood authority from those who have been "regularly ordained by the heads of the church" not by some back room secret ordination. No matter what any one says, that is what our scriptures say and is the truth!

Keys of Sealing Power. The keys of sealing power are held only by one person, the president of the church. D&C 132:7--"And verily I say unto you, that the conditions of this law are these: All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations, that are not made and entered into and sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, of him who is anointed, both as well for time and for all eternity, and that too most holy, by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed, whom I have appointed on the earth to hold this power (and I have appointed unto my servant Joseph to hold this power in the last days, and there is never but one on the earth at a time on whom this power and the keys of this priesthood are conferred), are of no efficacy, virtue, or force in and after the resurrection from the dead; for all contracts that are not made unto this end have an end when men are dead."

Several things in this verse stand out to me. First, there is only one person who holds the keys of this power. It was Joseph Smith while he was alive. Today it is President Monson. No one else holds the keys! Second, it must be "by revelation and commandment through the medium of mine anointed [the president of the church]." Plural marriage can only be performed if a commandment comes from God to do so by revelation to the president of the church. That revelation came to Joseph Smith. The revelation to end it came to Wilford Woodruff and was confirmed and completed by Joseph F. Smith. If the practice were to return, it would be by revelation to the living president of the church who holds the keys.

The Church not to Apostatize. Most splinter groups insist that the church has apostatized in some form or another. This contradicts the revelations of God, however. First of all, the dream recorded in Daniel 2 saw the coming forth of the Kingdom of God in the last days. It says "And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand for ever" (verse 44). The Church, according to this prophecy, will not be destroyed nor given to another people until the Millennial day which is approaching.

Most members of the Church are well aware of President Woodruff's statement found in the appendix to the Doctrine and Covenants: "The Lord will never permit me or any other man who stands as President of this Church to lead you astray. It is not in the programme. It is not in the mind of God. If I were to attempt that, the Lord would remove me out of my place, and so He will any other man who attempts to lead the children of men astray from the oracles of God and from their duty." I believe that statement, although it can't be used to convince a splinter group. Why? Because they believe Wilford Woodruff had already led the church astray and therefore could be lying in this statement. The funny thing is that this concept did not originate with Wilford Woodruff, but with Brigham Young:

"Brother [Heber C.] Kimball says you must keep alive, and give nourishment and vitality to the body, comparing the Church to a tree; that you must help your Prophet and Revelator and keep that portion of the tree alive. God keeps that alive, brethren and sisters. I thank you for your prayers, your integrity, &c., but I feel to-day as I did in Nauvoo, when Sidney Rigdon and others intended to ride the Church into hell. I told them that I would take my hat and the few that would go with me and build up the kingdom of God, asking no odds of them. If you support me, you support yourselves; if you do not choose to do this you will dry up, blow away and be damned....The Lord Almighty leads this Church, and he will never suffer you to be led astray if you are found doing your duty. You may go home and sleep as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms, as to any danger of your leaders leading you astray, for if they should try to do so the Lord would quickly sweep them from the earth." (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 9:289).

In other words, God would sustain and "keep alive" the heads of the church without the help of the members. Further, He will not permit them to lead the church astray "if you are found doing your duty." Well, with polygamy, the church did it's duty. The brethren and sisters suffered great persecution, went to jail, struggled and toiled while defending that principle. It would be incredibly uninformed for someone to accuse them of not doing their "duty" when the Lord ended plural marriage.

So why did plural marriage cease? "Wherefore I, the Lord, command and revoke, as it seemeth me good" (D&C 56:4). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, that when I give a commandment to any of the sons of men to do a work unto my name, and those sons of men go with all their might and with all they have to perform that work, and cease not their diligence, and their enemies come upon them and hinder them from performing that work, behold, it behooveth me to require that work no more at the hands of those sons of men, but to accept of their offerings" (D&C 124:49). The Lord gives and repeals commandments as his will according to the circumstances we find ourselves in. Many examples of this could be given. Let me know if you'd like a few.

Not all statements by the Prophet are "prophetic." Joseph Smith said a prophet is only a prophet when acting as such. A friend of mine says "Catholic doctrine says that the Pope is infallible, and no catholic believes it. Mormon doctrine says the prophet is not infallible and no Mormon believes it!" The truth of the matter is that the president of the church is just as much human as you or I. While entitled to revelation for the church and although he holds the keys of the priesthood and kingdom of God, God doesn't give him a new brain, a new personality, or new philosophies when he becomes president of the church. So, if you study hard, you'll find that the prophets sometimes contradict each other and even themselves on some issues that are not core doctrines or principles of the gospel. This shouldn't bother any latter-day saint any more than seeing differences in opinion, personalities, and philosophies of our bishops, priests, elders, stake presidents, or anyone else. It's the same for the president of the church.

Scriptures are the Standard Works. The scriptures are the standard works. They are the measuring stick (that's what "canon" means!) whereby to judge the doctrines and teachings of the church. If there is a conflict between the clear teaching of scripture and the views of a leader of the church, the scriptures take precedence. "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." (Joseph Fielding Smith in Doctrines of Salvation, 3:205)

Monogamy is the norm, not Polygamy. Lehi didn't practice polygamy. Neither did Nephi, Alma, Mosiah, Mormon, Moroni, Abinadi, Jacob [Nephi's brother], etc. The Lord actually forbade most polygamy among the Nephites (see Jacob 2). Paul forbade polygamy for elders and bishops (1 Tim. 3:2; Titus 1:5-6). However, Jacob 2:30 makes clear that the Lord may command it under certain circumstances. So, polygamy is not the norm, it is the exception. That is the scriptural fact, and that takes precedence over the opinions of any person.

Polygamy not required for Exaltation. It follows that if many prophets and even whole dispensations did not practice polygamy, it can't be required for exaltation. Further, D&C 132:19-20 makes it clear that polygamy is not part of the formula for exaltation. "And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood...they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
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."

"A man" sealed to "a woman" can be exalted, not a man sealed to "two or more women."

Kristi, I hope some of this helps. We can't ever force another's beliefs, but we should do all we can to bring the truth to light (D&C 124:11-16). The only person's belief you can ultimately control is your own. I hope these things I have mentioned will help you first and foremost.

So, what are the most troubling issues you are confronting?

Sincerely,
Andrew

Is the Bible Complete and Sufficient?

2008-06-01T17:28:00.003-06:00

I believe the most fundamental difference between the mainstream Protestant view of Christianity and that of Latter-day Saints is what some call call “the authority of scripture.” A Pastor friend of mine once said, “We cannot accept anything that is ‘extra-biblical’ as authoritative. Our creed is the bible, the whole bible and nothing but the bible.”

He and anyone else are welcome to accept such a view, although I believe it to be entirely inconsistent with a correct understanding of God and of historical fact. Let me demonstrate why.

I. First, what is scripture?

This statement from my pastor friend is basically a summarization or restatement of the basic protestant doctrine of sola scriptura. According to this view, all essential belief and practice must be derived directly from the protestant bible (without the apocrypha). This concept originated with certain reformers, but foremost Martin Luther (Bainton, Roland H. The Age of the Reformation. [London: Van Nostrand, 1956], 15). Ironically, Martin Luther had doubts “respecting some of the antilegomena, especially the Epistle of James, the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Revelation” (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, 8 Vol. [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. reprint], 3:610, fn 1.). In other words, before you can even practice a doctrine of sola scriptura, you have to determine what is scriptura, and Martin Luther, originator of sola scriptura, was unsure as to what was indeed to be included among scripture. By his own private view, accepting James, Hebrews, and Revelation may be accepting something “extra-biblical.”

II. Second, who interprets scripture?

There are many Christian sects that accept the doctrine of sola scriptura but that differ greatly in belief. Here are a few examples:

1. Is man totally depraved or is his nature only partially corrupted?

2. Can salvation, once gained, be lost or is a person “once saved, always saved?”

3. Does predestination dominate over free will, or is free will the center of salvation?

4. Did Christ die for all mankind, including the lost, or is his atonement limited to the saved?

5. Is grace irresistible, or can man continue to fight against God even when God calls him?

These are a few examples of the many doctrinal issues that divide Protestants, although most [all?] accept the sola scriptura doctrine. If all belief is supposed to be derived from scripture alone, how can there be such great divergence in belief? There is obviously a problem of interpretation. Who can authoritatively determine interpretation and thereby belief?

III. Third, is the Bible complete?

In order for the Bible to be the fully and completely authoritative book of scripture, it must be complete. Yet the Bible makes no such claim for itself anywhere. Further, the Bible specifically mentions other books of prophecy that are not found anywhere today.

These books include in the Old Testament time period the Book of the Covenant (Ex. 24:7), the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21:14), the Book of Jasher (Josh. 10:13), the book of Statutes (1 Sam. 10:25), the Book of Enoch (Jude 1:14), the Book of the Acts of Solomon (1 Kings 11:41), the Book of Nathan the Prophet, and that of Gad the Seer (1 Chr. 29:29), the Book of Ahijah the Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12:15), the Story of the Prophet Iddo (2 Chr. 13:22), the Book of Jehu (2 Chri. 20:34), the Acts of Uzziah (2 Chr. 26:22), and the Sayings of the Seers (2 Chr. 33:19).

The New Testament mentions other scripture not found in the Bible such as a missing epistle of Paul to the Corinthians (1 Cor. 5:9), a missing epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3:3), a missing epistle to Laodicea that Paul actually instructs the readers of his epistle to also read (Col 4:16), and a missing epistle of Jude (Jude 1:3).

Not only are there all of these missing books, but Paul, Luke, John and even Jesus mention that there are more teachings which are not written in the Bible. First, in the Gospel of John, usually thought to be the most spiritual gospel written to believers, Jesus said “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now. Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth...” (John 16:12). He had just explained that the spirit of truth or the Comforter could not come until after he had departed (John 16:7). Thus we see that not even Jesus was permitted to teach everything to his disciples since they were not ready. This teaching was to come later. The obvious conclusion is that there are things that Jesus thought his disciples should know but that are not found in any of the four gospels.

If these things are not in the four gospels, are they found somewhere else in the New Testament? If so, what are they and where are they? If we turn to Paul, we see more reluctance to write certain things. “I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able” (1 Cor. 3:2). If 1 Corinthians contains only milk, where is the meat? Does Paul anywhere in the New Testament add anything that could be considered “meat” when compared with 1 Corinthians? This is repeated in Hebrews: “For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe. But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full age” (Hebrews 5:12-14). So, if these higher concepts are not in the gospels, in 1 Corinthians, or Hebrews, where are they? It would appear that the New Testament contains only "milk," and yet (as pointed out before), this "milk" is interpreted in many different ways by the thousands of competing Protestant denominations!

The reason they were fed with milk and not meat was because they were not spiritually mature. The apostles of Jesus were spiritually mature, however, and they knew the meat. Jesus taught it to them after his resurrection. “[H]e shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God” (Acts 1:3). Yet, nothing is recorded more than this as to what these “things pertaining to the kingdom of God” are!

According to Clement, as quoted by the earliest and authoritative Christian historian Eusebius (c. 325 AD), Christ did some important teaching after his resurrection. “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy...” (The Church History of Eusebius, Book II, chapter I in Schaff, Philip and Wace, Henry, eds, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, 14 Vols [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004. reprint],1:104). If this knowledge (gnosis) was passed down orally from Jesus after his resurrection to his apostles and from them to the seventy, where is it today? Does it remain with the Roman Catholics, or was it lost? If everything that is needed were contained in scripture, why would Jesus impart knowledge orally after his resurrection, knowledge that is clearly not recorded in scripture (Acts 1:3)?

Paul and John both wrote that they would give more instructions in persons that they had not given in writing. Some of this must have been very pertinent information since the topics included the resurrection and the Lord’s Supper (See 1 Cor. 11:24; 2 John 1:12; 3 John 1:13-14). There was more to give than what was recorded in scripture. Where is that information today? Do the Catholics have it by tradition, or was it lost? If it was lost, how can it be restored without God calling another “Paul” or “John” to set things in order? For Latter-day Saints, Joseph Smith was exactly that.

IV. Scientifically, can we have confidence in the Bible?

I only need to quote two scholars for this topic. First I quote the faithful protestant Christian Philip Schaff.

“The oldest manuscripts of the Bible now extant date no further back than the fourth century, and are very few, and abound in unessential errors and omissions of every kind; and the problem of a critical restoration of the original text is not yet satisfactorily solved, nor can it be more than approximately solved in the absence of the original writings of the apostles” (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, 8 Vol. [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. reprint], 3:610).

Next I quote leading New Testament textual scholar Dr. Bart D. Ehrman.

“We do not have the ‘originals’ of any of the books that came to be included in the New Testament, or indeed of any Christian book from antiquity. What we have are copies of the originals or, to be more accurate, copies made from copies of the copies of the copies of the originals. Most of these surviving copies are hundreds of years removed from the originals themselves” (Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities [Oxford, 2003], 217).

In other words, we cannot know exactly what the New Testament originally said simply because there are no originals and the oldest copies are separated from the originals by centuries. We cannot have confidence, scientifically, that even one word found in the New Testament was written by Peter, Paul, John, Luke, Matthew, Mark, Jude, or anyone else. However, scientifically, we could still have high confidence that the books are at least accurate copies of the originals if when comparing the different manuscripts we found internal consistency and accuracy. But does the New Testament pass such a test?

Dr. Ehrman writes,

“The fact that we have thousands of New Testament manuscripts does not in itself mean that we can rest assured that we know what the original text said. If we have very few early copies—in fact, scarcely any—how can we know that the text was not changed significantly before the New Testament began to be reproduced in such large quantities? Most surviving copies were made during the Middle Ages, many of them a thousand years after Paul and his companions had died.

“I should emphasize that it is not simply a matter of scholarly speculation to say that the words of the New Testament were changed in the process of copying. We know that they were changed, because we can compare these 5,400 copies with on another. What is striking is that when we do so, we find that no two copies (except the smallest fragments) agree in all of their wording. There can be only one reason for this. The scribes who copied the texts changed them. Nobody knows for certain how often they changed them, because no one has been able yet to count all of the differences among the manuscripts. Some estimates put the number at around 200,000, others at around 300,000 or more. Perhaps it is simplest to express the figure in comparative terms: There are more differences among our manuscripts than there are words in the New Testament” (Ehrman, Bart D. Lost Christianities [Oxford, 2003], 219).

I should here qualify these statements. I do not believe the Bible to be inaccurate or falsified. The Book of Mormon actually says the Bible is true. The Book of Mormon is, in part, a book written “to the convincing [of men] of my word, which shall have already gone forth among them [i.e. the Bible]” (2 Nephi 3:11). Mormon, the compiler of the Book of Mormon, wrote that “this [the Book of Mormon] is written for the intent that ye may believe [the Bible]” (Mormon 7:9). Because I have received a spiritual witness that the Book of Mormon is true, I also know the Bible is true, notwithstanding the apparent scientific problems of the Bible.

V. How was the canon established?

Once again, I turn to Philip Schaff.

“At the end of the fourth century views still differed in regard to the extent of the canon, or the number of the books which should be acknowledged as divine and authoritative....

“Of the New Testament, in the time of Eusebius, the four Gospels, the Acts, thirteen Epistles of Paul, the first Epistle of John, and the first Epistle of Peter, were universally recognized as canonical, while the Epistle to the Hebrews, the second and third Epistles of John, the second Epistle of Peter, the Epistle of James, and the Epistle of Jude were by many disputed as to their apostolic origin, and the book of Revelation was doubted by reason of its contents. This indecision in reference to the Old Testament Apocrypha prevailed still longer in the Eastern church; but by the middle of the fourth century the seven disputed books of the New Testament were universally acknowledged, and they are included in the lists of the canonical books given by Athanasius, Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilochius of Iconium, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Epiphanius; except that in some cases the Apocalypse is omitted.

“In the Western church the canon of both Testaments was closed at the end of the fourth century through the authority of Jerome (who wavered, however, between critical doubts and the principle of tradition), and more especially of Augustine, who firmly followed the Alexandrian canon of the Septuagint, and the preponderant tradition in reference to the disputed Catholic Epistles and the Revelation; though he himself, in some places, inclines to consider the Old Testament Apocrypha as deutero-canonical books, bearing a subordinate authority. The council of Hippo in 393, and the third (according to another reckoning the sixth) council of Carthage in 397, under the influence of Augustine, who attended both, fixed the catholic canon of the Holy Scriptures, including the Apocrypha of the Old Testament, and prohibited the reading of other books in the churches, excepting the Acts of the Martyrs on their memorial days. These two African councils, with Augustine, give forty-four books as the canonical books of the Old Testament, in the following order: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings (the two of Samuel and the two of Kings), two books of Paralipomena (Chronicles), Job, the Psalms, five books of Solomon, the twelve minor Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezekiel, Tobias, Judith, Esther, two books of Ezra, two books of Maccabees. The New Testament canon is the same as ours.

“This decision of the transmarine church however, was subject to ratification; and the concurrence of the Roman see it received when Innocent I. and Gelasius I. (a.d. 414) repeated the same index of biblical books.

“This canon remained undisturbed till the sixteenth century, and was sanctioned by the council of Trent at its fourth session (Schaff, Philip. History of the Christian Church, 8 Vol. [Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. reprint], 3:608-610).

In other words, as to what books belonged in the Bible and what the official canon would be, we depend entirely upon the ideas and debates of mortal men. God never spelled out what should or should not be included unless you believe in post-apostolic revelation (which would completely defeat the concept of sola scriptura on its own!).

Conclusion

The doctrine of sola scriptura is problematic and full of contradictions. The Bible itself does not claim to be complete. There are missing books. No New Testament author claimed to be telling all. Further, several promised to tell more in person. There is also evidence for teachings in the early Christian church that were not written, but communicated orally to those who were spiritually mature. Unless passed on in Catholicism, that information must have been lost. Scientifically, the Bible cannot be considered infallible or completely trustworthy. We cannot be certain that even one word of the New Testament is identical to the original manuscripts. Lastly, the canon of scripture as we now have it was a product of debate, speculation, and catholic councils. To accept the Bible as complete is to accept the authority of such debate, after revelation has supposedly ceased.

Latter-day Saints, of course, do not accept sola scriptura. Our belief is based on what the Bible is based on; i.e. revelation from God. We wouldn’t have a Bible if it weren’t for revelation. In order for Christianity to be like it was in apostolic times, it needs to step away from putting too much emphasis on the Bible as the source of all truth. God is the source of all truth, not the Bible! Original Christianity didn’t even have the Bible. The world has the Bible because of the things that were written by those who experienced religion. Spiritual knowledge shouldn’t have to be, or rather, can't be bound in the covers of a book. It is to be found in the spiritual experiences we have ourselves, not in the spiritual experiences of others. We should not have “Bible religions” because the Bible is not religion—it is simply the record of those who had religion. True religion is a living thing. To confine God to past revelation is to place a death sentence on the living God!

I believe that God said it best when he said a day would come when people “shall teach with their learning and deny the Holy Ghost, which giveth utterance. And they deny the power of God, the Holy One of Israel; and they say unto the people: Hearken unto us, and hear ye our precept; for behold there is no God today, for the Lord and the Redeemer hath done his work, and he hath given his power unto men...Wo be unto him that hearkeneth unto the precepts of men, and denieth the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost! Yea, wo be unto him that saith: We have received and we need no more! And in fine, wo unto all those who tremble and are angry because of the truth of God! For behold, he that is built upon the rock receiveth it with gladness; and he that is built upon a sandy foundation trembleth lest he shall fall. Wo be unto him that shall say: We have received the word of God, and we need no more of the word of God, for we have enough!” (2 Nephi 28:4-5, 26-29)

Revelation 22:18-19 Discussion

2008-05-26T11:33:00.003-06:00

I thought I would try something a little different. Instead of posting on a topic, I would like you to discuss a topic.

Does Revelation 22:18-19 mean there can be no more scripture after the New Testament?

Discuss.

Some Postman

2008-05-20T19:28:00.001-06:00

I thought a little humor around here might be appreciated.

Daniel C. Peterson and Book of Mormon Evidences

2008-05-17T13:38:00.003-06:00

An Ancient Setting for the Book of Mormon

2008-05-14T20:13:00.002-06:00

So, most of you probably had already read it when I started it a few weeks ago. It's one of those topics that didn't interest me very much for a long time. Recently, however, I decided to take it up. I must say, I've enjoyed it greatly. I think John L. Sorenson builds a wonderful case that the Book of Mormon took place in ancient Mesoamerica. For what it is worth, I highly recommend the book to any who doubt the Book of Mormon had a real setting in ancient America.

Ten Keys to Interpreting the Scriptures

2008-05-09T20:58:00.008-06:00

Key 1: Be humble. Keep an open mind.

Your understanding of the scriptures will change and increase in proportion to your humility and open-mindedness.

Key 2: “Dig up the root and ascertain what it was that drew out the saying”--Joseph Smith.

“I have a key by which I understand the scriptures. I inquire, what was the question which drew out the answer, or caused Jesus to utter the parable? [. . .] To ascertain its meaning, we must dig up the root and ascertain what it was that drew the saying out of Jesus.

“While Jesus was teaching the people, all the publicans and sinners drew near to hear Him; 'and the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying: This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.' This is the keyword which unlocks the parable of the prodigal son. It was given to answer the murmurings and questions of the Sadducees and Pharisees, who were querying, finding fault, and saying, 'How is it that this man as great as He pretends to be, eats with publicans and sinners?' Jesus was not put to it so, but He could have found something to illustrate His subject, if He had designed if for nation or nations; but He did not. It was for men in an individual capacity; and all straining on this point is a bubble. 'This man receiveth sinners and eateth with them.'

“And he spake this parable unto them— 'What man of you, having an hundred sheep, if he lose one of them doth not leave the ninety-and-nine in the wilderness, and go after that which is lost, until he find it? And when he hath found it, he layeth it on his shoulders, rejoicing. And when he cometh home, he calleth together his friends and neighbors, saying unto them, Rejoice with me; for I have found my sheep which was lost. I say unto you, that likewise joy shall be in heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons which need no repentance.' The hundred sheep represent one hundred Sadducees and Pharisees, as though Jesus had said, 'If you Sadducees and Pharisees are in the sheepfold, I have no mission for you; I am sent to look up sheep that are lost; and when I have found them, I will back them up and make joy in heaven.' This represents hunting after a few individuals, or one poor publican, which the Pharisees and Sadducees despised.

“He also gave them the parable of the woman and her ten pieces of silver, and how she lost one, and searching diligently, found it again, which gave more joy among the friends and neighbors than the nine which were not lost; like I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of God over one sinner that repenteth, more than over ninety-and-nine just persons that are so righteous; they will be damned anyhow; you cannot save them. (Jan. 29, 1843.)” (Joseph Smith in Smith, Joseph Fielding, Ed., Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 276-278).

Key 3: Correctly understand words.

What does “conversation” mean in King James English? (See Psalm 37:14; 50:23; Galatians 1:13; 1 Peter 3:16; 2 Peter 3:11).

What does “will/would” mean in King James English? (See 1 Timothy 2:4,8; John 7:17; Alma 33:16-17,23)

What does “by and by” mean in King James English? (See Bible Dictionary, p. 627)

What do the words “eternal,” “everlasting,”and “endless” mean? (See D&C 19:6-12; Moses 1:3) How does this clarify the meaning of “eternal life,” “the greatest of all the gifts of God?” Are the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah still burning (See Jude 1:7)?

Key 4: Look for similar words/phrases.

What does “after all we can do” (2 Nephi 25:23) mean? (See Alma 24:10-11, 15)

What is the “word of Christ”(2 Nephi 31:20) that we are to feast upon? (See 2 Nephi 32:2-3,5)

Why does Ether 12:27 speak of “their weakness” and not “their weaknesses?” What is this “weakness” that all men have in common? (See Ether 3:2; 12:37; Jacob 4:7; D&C 62:5)

What does the “flaming sword” in Genesis 3:24 represent? (See Appendix: The Flaming Sword and the Justice of God)

Key 5: Study the original languages.

The Hebrew word yawd, translated as “place” in Isaiah 56:5 literally denotes an “open hand.” How does this knowledge change your appreciation for this verse?

The word musterion translated as “secret” or “mystery” in the New Testament is a word used in ancient Greek to denote a “secret rite.” It translates into Latin as sacramentum, i.e. a “sacrament” or an “ordinance.” The word teleoi translated as “the perfect [ones]” and “the mature [ones]” was often used in ancient Greek to denote those who were initiated into the “mysteries.” The word sofia translated as “wisdom” was often used to denote heavenly or sacred wisdom that was given in connection with the “mysteries.” Read 1 Corinthians 2:1-8, 3:1-2; 4:1 (Note: The word “testimony” in verse 1 should be “mystery” according to the best manuscripts and is probably wrong in the KJV). How does this strengthen your testimony of the temple ordinances?

“Jershon” is probably related to a Hebrew word meaning “inheritance.” Read Alma 27:22,24,26 and note the words “inherit” and “inheritance.” How does this strengthen your testimony of the Book of Mormon?

Key 6: The Spirit of prophecy.

“Prophets gave the scripture, and prophets must interpret it. Holy men of old received revelation from the Holy Ghost, which they recorded as scripture; now men must have the same Holy Spirit to reveal what is meant by scripture—otherwise there will be a host of private interpretations and consequently many different and disagreeing churches, which is precisely the condition in the religious word today”(Bruce R. McConkie in McConkie, Mark L., Ed., Sermons & Writings of Bruce R. McConkie, p. 82).

Key 7: Who is addressed in the particular passage of scripture?

“Christ says no man knoweth the day or the hour when the Son of Man cometh (Matt. 24:36). . . . Did Christ speak this as a general principle throughout all generations? Oh no; he spoke in the present tense. No man that was then living upon the footstool of God knew the day or the hour, but he did not say that there was no man throughout all generations that should not know the day or the hour. No, for this would be in flat contradiction with other scripture for the prophet says that God will do nothing but what he will reveal unto his servants the prophets (Amos 3:7). Consequently, if it is not made known to the Prophets it will not come to pass. Again we find Paul in 1^st Thessalonians 5^th Chapter expressly points out the characters who shall not know the day nor the hour when the Son of Man cometh. For, says he, it will come upon them as the thief or unawares. Who are they? They are the children of darkness or night. But to the Saints he says “ye are not of the night nor of darkness that that day should come upon you unawares” (Joseph Smith in Ehat, Andrew F. and Cook, Lyndon W., eds., The Words of Joseph Smith: The Contemporary Accounts of the Nauvoo Discourses of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 180=181).

Key 8: If possible, read the scriptures in a second language.

Reading the scriptures in a foreign language generally requires more focus. It will give you added insights to passages that you might not have had in English.

Key 9: Consult other English translations for the Bible for difficult passages.

Let's be honest—sometimes King James English is as strange to us as a foreign language. Consulting a modern translation on difficult passages from time to time is helpful. Care must be given for translator biases, however. Some fairly reliable translations include the English Standard Version, the New King James Version, and the New Revised Standard Version.

Key 10: Consult an inspired commentary.

A Plug for Lehi's Library

2008-05-06T13:31:00.000-06:00

This is worth checking out: Trusting the Heart.

Frederic W. Farrar on Salvation for the Dead

2008-05-02T15:45:00.002-06:00

Non LDS-theologian Frederic W. Farrar commented on 1 Peter 3:18-19; 4:6 thusly:

In this truth is involved nothing less than the extension of Christ’s redeeming work to the dead....I allude of course to the famous passage...that ‘Christ...went and preached to the spirits in prison.’... Few words of Scripture have been so tortured and emptied of their significance as these...Every effort has been made to explain away the plain meaning of this passage. It is one of the most precious passages of Scripture, and it involves no ambiguity, except as is created by the scholasticism of a prejudiced theology...For if language have any meaning, this language means that Christ, when His Spirit descended into the lower world, proclaimed the message of salvation to the once impenitent dead. No honest man who goes to Holy Scripture to seek for truth, instead of going to try and find whatever errors he may bring to it as part of his theological belief, can possibly deny that there is ground here to mitigate that element of the popular teaching of Christendom against which many of the greatest Saints and theologians have raised their voices [that is, the exclusivist view]....We thus rescue the work of redemption from the appearance of having failed to achieve its end for the vast majority of those for whom Christ died. By accepting the light thus thrown upon ‘the descent into Hell’ we extend to those of the dead who have not finally hardened themselves against it the blessedness of Christ’s atoning work. We thus complete the divine, all-comprehending circuit of God’s universal grace (Farrar, Frederic W. The Early Days of Christianity, 2 Vols. [New York: Cassell, Petter, Galpin & Company, 1882] 1:139-143)!

Farrar has given a wonderful insight, and I believe he is absolutely right: You destroy the doctrine of salvation for the dead and the concept of redemption has lost any real meaning and the very atonement of Christ has been made a mockery. This is so because the vast majority of people have never heard the gospel of Christ in this life.

Why are so many modern Christians opposed to this clearly biblical concept? (See my paper HERE for much more information)

Augustine on Deification

2008-04-29T19:49:00.003-06:00

The following quote from St. Augustine should be of interest to LDS readers.

But God forbid that we should meet him with such an assertion as he says certain persons advance against him: "That man is placed on an equality with God, if he is described as being without sin;" as if indeed an angel, because he is without sin, is put in such an equality. For my own part, I am of this opinion that the creature will never become equal with God, even when so perfect a holiness shall be accomplished in us, that it shall be quite incapable of receiving any addition. No; all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion; for myself I must confess that I am not persuaded of this. (On Nature and Grace, chapter 37)

I believe this indicates that some Christians even as late as St. Augustine believed that those who are saved will "become what [God] is" and that their "substance" will "be changed into the substance of God." The word "substance" should be interesting to anyone who has studied early Christianity. The early Christians used "substance" as a code word for "same nature." The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are said to be of one substance, that is, each is of the same nature.

Food for thought.

Cessationism--Where have the Gifts Gone?

2008-04-29T12:51:00.012-06:00

I recently communicated with an individual who reads this blog who is a cessationist. I hadn't heard the term before, but have met others who were cessationists. Wikipedia defines cessationism thus:

In Christian theology, cessationism is the view that the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as tongues, prophecy and healing, ceased being practiced early on in Church history.

Cessationists usually believe the miraculous gifts were given only for the foundation of the Church, during the time between the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, c. AD 33 (see Acts 2) and the fulfillment of God's purposes in history, usually identified as either the completion of the last book of the New Testament or the death of the last Apostle. Its counterpart is continuationism.

In other words, a cessationist believes the gifts of the Spirit have ceased since there is no more need for them. This individual I spoke with said that these gifts ceased because the apostles died and could no longer pass on these gifts to others. This idea is somewhat reminescent of the LDS concept of the apostasy. However, cessationists believe that it was God's will that these gifts cease since they have served their purpose. This individual further informed me that all we need is contained in scripture (i.e. The Bible). Cessationism is closely related to the (extra-Biblical!) Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura (See here and here and here).

Of course, Latter-day Saints are not cessationists. One of our articles of faith states, "we believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and so forth" (Article of Faith 7). Many, if not most, of us LDS have seen such gifts operate in the Church from time to time as needed.

As a LDS I can point to slews of LDS scriptures that declare these gifts to be needed in the Church today as much as 2000 years ago. However, since my cessationist friend does not accept LDS scripture as valid, I will here investigate and analyze the Biblical passages that pertain to this topic.

So, what passages are used to support cessationism?

Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be knowledge, it shall vanish away.(1 Corinthians 13:8)

But when does this scripture say that prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will "vanish away?" Look at the following verses:

For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away...For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

This seems perfectly clear to me. "Then," when we will see "face to face" we shall no longer "know in part." Then prophecy, tongues, and knowledge will be perfect and cannot be added upon. Do we now know all things? Do we know all speak the same language? If not, then there is no warrant, according to this scripture, for the cessation of these gifts.

Further, 1 Corinthians opens with a passage that clearly teaches continuationism.

1:4 I thank my God always on your behalf, for the grace of God which is given you by Jesus Christ;

1:5 That in every thing ye are enriched by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge;

1:6 Even as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you:

1:7 So that ye come behind in no gift; waiting for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ:

1:8 Who shall also confirm you unto the end, that ye may be blameless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This scripture indicates that the gifts of the Spirit will be on earth until the second coming of Jesus who will "confirm" (Greek: secure, establish, strengthen) us until the end.

Later in 1 Corinthians Paul exhorts us to "eagerly seek after spiritual gifts, most especially the gift of prophecy" (my translation of 1 Corinthians 14:1). When I pointed this scripture out to my cessationalist friend he responded that the verse refers to interpreting scripture. While my friend is welcome to interpret the passage this way, that is clearly a practice of eisegesis and not exegesis. In the same chapter Paul writes "Wherefore, brethren, with zeal seek to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking with tongues" (my translation of 1 Cor. 14:39). If Paul meant for these passages only to apply to the Corinthians of the first century A.D., he surely didn't say so.

Lastly, what about Jesus' statement that man shall live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God?" Note that Jesus did not say every word that "proceeded" out of the mouth of God, but by every word that "proceedeth" out of the mouth of God. Surely God's words and works never cease (see Moses 1:4)

While this post certainly isn't exhaustive on such an important topic, I think it is sufficient to start a discussion on the topic if anyone is interested.

As I mentioned previously, LDS scripture has a lot say about this topic. I will not investigate this here, but I point the interested reader to 2 Nephi 28:3-6, 26-31; 2 Nephi 29; Mormon 9; Moroni 7:24-38; 10:7-28. Anyone who does not believe that the gifts of the Spirit exist today would benefit greatly from reading these passages, pondering on their meaning, and seeking the truth of the matter.

Interesting Poetic Form in Mosiah 2

2008-04-28T20:31:00.006-06:00

Years ago, someone (I do not recall who) pointed out the following parallelism in King Benjamin's speech in the Book of Mormon. Notice that it appears to be in verses (for lack of a better word), with each new verse set off with "behold" followed by two groups of parallelisms. The form looks like this:

Behold,

1.
1.

2.
2.

Behold,

3.
3.

4.
4.

Behold,

5.
5.

6.
6.

Behold,

7.
7.

8.
8.

Here it is:

[Verse 1] Behold,

I say unto you
that because I said unto you

that I had spent my days in your service,
I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.

[Verse 2] And behold,

I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom;
that ye may learn that when

ye are in the service of your fellow beings
ye are only in the service of your God.

[Verse 3] Behold,

ye have called me your king; and if I,
whom ye call your king,

do labor to serve you, then ought not
ye to labor to serve one another?

[Verse 4] And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king,

who has spent his days in your service, and
yet has been in the service of God,

do merit any thanks from you,
O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!

(Mosiah 2:16-19)

There is no doubt in my mind that this was intentionally done by the author. For the sake of argument, if Joseph Smith were the author and not the translator, did he come up with this poem intentionally when he "made up" the Book of Mormon? If so, why? Also, if so, why didn't he ever point out such beautiful complexities in the Book of Mormon (as there are many such complexities)?

I suggest that Joseph Smith did not write the Book of Mormon. Further, I submit he didn't even know such complexities existed in the text. The Book of Mormon is far more complex than its critics are willing to admit. It is interesting that most of the criticisms leveled against that holy book are against its origins, and not its content. Isn't it time that the critics took seriously the complexity of the book as confirming evidence of its veracity?

See more here: No Evidences for the Book of Mormon?

Closed Canon--Extra-Biblical?

2008-04-19T22:14:00.006-06:00

Catholic and Protestant doctrines teach that the culminating revelation was Jesus Christ himself. After his coming, the need for revelation has ceased. All truth necessary for salvation is found in the Bile and the scriptural canon is closed. The Catholics, ironically, reluctantly admit that the revelation given thus far "has not been made completely explicit" (see below).

On the other hand, LDS believe that there can be no salvation without current revelation, that the canon of scripture will always be open (at least in mortality), and the Bible does not contain every essential word spoken by God. Further, the Bible cannot replace modern revelation.

Catholic Doctrine

" '...no new revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ.' Yet even if revelation is already complete, it has not been made completely explicit; it remains for Christian faith gradually to grasp its full significance over the course of the centuries....Christian faith cannot accept 'revelations' that claim to surpass or correct the revelations of which Christ is the fulfillment, as in the case in certain non-Christian religions and also in certain recent sects which base themselves on such 'revelations.' " (Catechism of the Catholic Church. [New York: Doubleday, 1995], pp. 27-28 paragraphs 66-67).

In other words, it took time "over the course of the centuries" to develop "Christian faith" since the completed revelation of ancient prophets and apostles "has not been made completely explicit." However, there will be no more revelation to clarify this confusion. Therefore, beware of any claiming to have more revelation (like the LDS)!

Protestant Doctrine

"Since the completion of the biblical books, there is no further divine inspiration for the writing of Scripture....Jesus Christ has done all that he can do in his redemptive purposes until his return to the earth. And in the available canon we have all the truths necessary to acceptance with God and for an abundant life. All the noncontradictory teachings of alleged recent revelations together do no add anything significant to scriptural teachings on God, mankind, sin, salvation, the church, and things to come. The commission of the apostles was unique and norepeatable...All the alleged revelations of spiritists, Latter-Day Saints, Christian Scientists, and others put together do not add anything significant to the teaching of Scripture...What people need nos is not more revelations but more faithfulness to the Spirit-illumined applications of biblical principles to specific situations" (Lewis, Gordon R., & Demarest, Bruce A., Integrative Theology. [Grand Rapids: Zondervan]. 1:116-117).

These authors would have us believe that:

1. There can be no more apostles.
2. There can be no more scripture other than what is in the Bible.
3. Jesus Christ can do no more for man's salvation than what he has already done.
4. LDS revelation does not add "anything significant" to our understanding of God.
5. et cetera

The message is clear: We are not to expect God to speak anymore to lead us to salvation. We have "scholars" who can do that for Him based on their interpretation of the Bible.

Mormon Doctrine

"From what we can draw from the Scriptures relative to the teaching of heaven, we are induced to think that much instruction has been given to man since the beginning which we do not possess now. This may not agree with the opinions of some of our friends who are bold to say that we have everything written in the Bible which God ever spoke to man since the world began, and that if He had ever said anything more we should certainly have received it. But we ask, does it remain for a people who never had faith enough to call down one scrap of revelation from heaven, and for all they have now are indebted to the faith of another people who lived hundreds and thousands of years before them, does it remain for them to say how much God has spoken and how much He has not spoken? We have what we have, and the Bible contains what it does contain: but to say that God never said anything more to man than is there recorded would be saying at once that we have at least received a revelation: for it must require one to advance thus far, because it is nowhere said in that volume by the mouth of God, that He would not, after giving what is there contained, speak again; and if any man has found out for a fact that the Bible contains all that God ever revealed to man he has ascertained it by an immediate revelation, other than has been previously written by the prophets and apostles" (Joseph Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976], pp 61-62).

"Now I will give my testimony. I care not for man. I speak boldly and faithfully and with authority. How is it with the kingdom of God? Where did the kingdom of God begin? Where there is no kingdom of God there is no salvation. What constitutes the kingdom of God? Where there is a prophet, a priest, or a righteous man unto whom God gives his oracles, there is the kingdom of God; and where the oracles of God are not, there the kingdom of God is not...The plea of many in this day is, that we have no right to receive revelations; but if we do not get revelations, we do not have the oracles of God; and if they have not the oracles of God, they are not the people of God. But say you, What will become of the world, or the various professors of religion who do not believe in revelation and the oracles of God as continued in His Church in all ages of the world, when He has a people on earth? I tell you, in the name of Jesus Christ, they will be damned; and when you get into the eternal world, you will find it will be so, they cannot escape the damnation of hell" (Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976], p. 271).

The irony is obvious. The idea of a closed canon, i.e. all necessary truth is already found in the Bible, is extra-Biblical. Logically, if a person proclaims that doctrine and belief must be derived from the Bible alone (sola scriptura), shouldn't the Bible say so? Further, if revelation was supposed to cease, how shall we know it without a revelation saying so?

Final Thoughts

This is clearly one of the biggest differences, if not the biggest difference, between LDS and mainstream Christian beliefs. I must here admit, I have never found any arguments against modern revelation or a closed canon convincing. While it is one thing to argue that Joseph Smith didn't receive true revelations (in actuality), it is another to argue that he couldn't have received revelation (in theory).

Further Reading

For those who are interested, I recommend:

1. Elder Holland's recent General Conference talk: "My Words...Never Cease"
2. 2 Nephi 28:3-6, 26-31
3. 2 Nephi 29:6-11
4. Joseph Smith--History 1:12

PS. I'm going to be out of town until next Saturday. I don't think I'll be by here in during the interlude. However, feel free to comment.

From Everlasting to Everlasting

2008-04-16T09:17:00.008-06:00

We Latter-day Saints have been strongly criticized for our belief that God is a progressive being who was once a man like us. This quote from Joseph Smith is well-known amoung our critics.

I will go back to the beginning before the world was, to show what kind of being God is. What sort of a being was God in the beginning? Open your ears and hear, all ye ends of the earth...God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret...He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 435-436).

This conflicts, according to our critics, with the statements of scripture that God is "from everlasting to everlasting." I suppose it does conflict if you interpret "everlasting" to mean "forever and ever," but is that how it should be interpreted?

The Hebrew word olawm (Strongs 5769), literally means a time "concealed" or "out of mind." It can only be interpreted as "forever" in the future or the past figuratively. In other words, these passage literally speak of God as being God from a time "out of mind" from some point that is "concealed" from us.

President Joseph Fielding Smith commented:

"From eternity to eternity" means from the spirit existence through the probation which we are in, and then back again to the eternal existence which will follow...We all existed in the first eternity. I think I say can of myself and others, we are from eternity; and we will be to eternity everlasting, if we receive the exaltation. The intelligent part of man was never created but always existed. That is true of each of us as well as it is of God, yet we are born sons and daughters of God in the spirit and are destined to exist forever. Those who become like God will also be from eternity to eternity (Doctrines of Salvation, 1:12).

In other words, God is from everlasting to everlasting because he, like us, came from a spirit existence (one eternity) and then passed through a mortal probation into exaltation (the other eternity). Likewise, all mankind is from eternity, and those of us who are exalted will be to eternity. Eternity the place where spirit offspring is brought forth. We all came from one eternity. The exalted will in the hereafter bring forth their own spirit offspring. Therefore, they will be from eternity to eternity. This is in harmony with D&C 132:19-20.

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they [the seeds?] 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.

I bring this all up simply to show that this criticism, like many others, leveled against the doctrines of the LDS Church is based on the preconceived notions of "mainstream" Christianity. While most in "mainstream" Christianity would interpret "from eternity to eternity" as "for ever and ever," LDS interpret it to mean "from one eternity (the creation of spirit children) to the next eternity (the creation of spirit children)." So, LDS can insist on one hand that God was once a mortal man and on the other hand fully accept and agree with the scriptures that say he is "from eternity to eternity." For us, "from eternity to eternity" means exactly that: God was once a man like you or I. Further, we mortals can become "from everlasting to everlasting" and become gods ourselves just as God the Father has done.

For Good and Evil

2008-04-12T20:14:00.005-06:00

I've always been impressed by the angel Moroni's prediction he made to Joseph Smith on the night of September 21, 1823.

He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people (Joseph Smith History 1:33).

When in Liberty Jail in March 1839, Joseph Smith received further light and knowledge on this topic. Said the Lord,

The ends of the earth shall inquire after thy name, and fools shall have thee in derision, and hell shall rage against thee; 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 (Doctrine and Covenants 122:1-2).

I have over the past few months visited a particular anti-Mormon message board. No matter how many times it occurs I am always shocked by the kind of foul names and language used by these "Christians" toward Joseph Smith. I stopped by for about 10 minutes today and read the following:

"Smith is a liar."

"joseph smith got the inspiration for his practice of polygamy from his loins."

"i would imagine it does save God some on his energy costs when those who are as full of gas, dung, and hot air as smithy was, finally arrive at their eternal destination. kindling."

"Joseph Smith is burning in hell."

Joseph Smith was a "sexual predator."

Mormons "revere a pedophile prophet."

Joseph Smith was "a dirty old man taking advantage of his authority position."

"Joseph Smith was a false prophet."

Joseph Smith committed "treason, bank fraud, adultery, bore false witness" and then was "shot to death by all these of peeved folks that he took advantage of."

I ask my viewers, in light of Ephesians 4:15, Matthew 5:43-47; 7:1-2 and 1 Corinthians 11:16 if such behavior and language is befitting of a Christian?

Of course, such behavior is nothing new. When Samuel the Lamanite was called upon by the Lord to preach to the wicked Nephites, he upbraided them saying:

And now when ye talk, ye say: If our days had been in the days of our fathers of old, we would not have slain the prophets; we would not have stoned them, and cast them out. Behold, ye are worse than they; for as the Lord liveth, if a prophet come among you and declareth unto you the word of the Lord, which testifieth of your sins and iniquities, ye are angry with him, and cast him out and seek all manner of ways to destroy him; yea, you will say that he is a false prophet, and that he is a sinner, and of the devil, because he testifieth that your deeds are evil (Helaman 13:25-26)

In short, they "choose darkness rather than light" (Hel. 13:29). Could there be anywhere on earth a better description of how Joseph Smith was treated during his life and how some speak of him still to this day?

How grateful I am for the absolute knowledge I have received by the power of the Holy Spirit that Joseph Smith was called of God to bring forth the fullness of the everlasting gospel in preparation for the judgment to come as predicted by John in Revelation 14:6-7!

General Conference

2008-04-06T13:10:00.000-06:00

I know it seems that everyone says this every General Conference, but I must say, this has been one of the best and most memorable conferences I've ever seen. It has truly been wonderful for me personally. I hope each of you have had an opportunity to see it and enjoy it.

Best Wishes,
Andrew

Special General Conference

2008-04-04T11:39:00.002-06:00

Tomorrow we will sustain a new First Presidency of the Church and will likely sustain a new apostle. The new First Presidency has already been announced. Who will the new apostle be? At this point, most of us can only guess. Here are my guesses:

1. Richard G. Hinckley
2. Marvin Jensen
3. Jay Jensen
4. H. David Burton
5. Claudio Costa

Of course, it probably won't be any of those, but it's fun to guess. :) What are your guesses?

SANE Symposium

2008-04-04T11:32:00.003-06:00

Students of the Ancient Near East at BYU (SANE) have been kind enough to invite students who are not studying the Ancient Near East to participate in their symposium this coming fall. I have submitted a research proposal for a paper to present and have been (conditionally) invited to present my paper this fall. If everything goes well, I'll be presenting a paper on November 7 at 9:30 AM. Below is a copy of my proposal:

The Greek word musterion, most often translated as "mystery" in the New Testament, had a specific meaning throughout much of the ancient world when Paul wrote his epistles. This word was used by the mystery religions of his day to refer to a secret rite or teaching that was given to those who were initiated. Since musterion generally referred to a religious ritual, the translator(s) of the Latin Vulgate frequently translated the word as sacramentum (Daniel 2:18; 4:6; Tobit 12:7; Ephesians 1:9; 3:3,9; 5:32; 1 Timothy 3:16; Revelation 1:20). Paul clearly employed this term in this way in 1 Corinthians to refer to esoteric rituals the "mature" Christians practiced (1 Corinthians 2:6). These Christians were those who were no longer "babes" in the gospel and who could endure "adult food" and not just "milk" of the gospel (1 Corinthians 3:1-2). In this context, Paul referred to himself as one who dispensed or oversaw the "mysteries" (1 Corinthians 4:1). Paul upbraided the Corinthian saints for not being ready yet to receive these mysteries.

These secret rituals and teachings had their origin in Christ's forty-day teachings according to Clement of Alexandria, and they clearly continued among some circles in the early Church as shown by Justin Martyr, the Clementine Homilies, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and others. Due to heavy external persecution, all of the sacraments became "mysteries" being performed in secret to avoid the scrutiny of outsiders. Eventually the separate esoteric rituals spoken of by Paul were absorbed into the common rituals of baptism, confirmation, and the Lord's Supper and thus lost their separate identity.

This paper will first investigate the etymology and meaning of the word "mystery" and then demonstrate that these "mysteries" were a part of Pauline-Christianity. From this foundation, the paper will then show the continuance of these esoteric rituals and their absorption into the exoteric rituals resulting in their eventual loss in the early Christian Church. While not expressly tied to the ancient temple, there is considerable evidence that these teachings grew out of temple theology (see Barker, Margaret, The Secret Tradition).

I've read quite a bit on this topic, but for any of you early Church history buffs out there who may know of some interesting sources, any suggestions are welcome.

Tragic Death, Prayer, and Doctors

2008-03-28T11:29:00.002-06:00

A real tragedy recently happened. A 11 year-old daughter was sick. The parents choose to pray for her and not to take her to a doctor. As a consequence, the child died. Some are questioning whether the parents should be prosecuted. Here's the story.

Thanks to my friend over at Life on Gold Plates for this interesting quote from Brigham Young:

You may go to some people here, and ask what ails them, and they answer, “I don't know, but we feel a dreadful distress in the stomach and in the back; we feel all out of order, and we wish you to lay hands upon us.”

“Have you used any remedies?”

“No. We wish the Elders to lay hands upon us, and we have faith that we shall be healed.”

That is very inconsistent according to my faith. If we are sick, and ask the Lord to heal us, and to do all for us that is necessary to be done, according to my understanding of the Gospel of salvation, I might as well ask the Lord to cause my wheat and corn to grow, without my plowing the ground and casting in the seed. It appears consistent to me to apply every remedy that comes within the range of my knowledge, and to ask my Father in heaven, in the name of Jesus Christ, to sanctify that application to the healing of my body; to another this may appear inconsistent.

If a person afflicted with a cancer should come to me and ask me to heal him, I would rather go the graveyard and try to raise a dead person, comparatively speaking.

But supposing we were traveling in the mountains and all we had or could get, in the shape of nourishment, was a little venison, and one or two were taken sick, without anything in the world in the shape of healing medicine within our reach, what should we do? According to my faith, ask the Lord Almighty to send an angel to heal the sick. This is our privilege, when so situated that we cannot get anything to help ourselves. Then the Lord and his servants can do all.

But it is my duty to do, when I have it in my power. Many people are unwilling to do one thing for themselves, in case of sickness, but ask God to do it all (Brigham Young, JD 4:24-25).

Apostle-Apologists?

2008-03-23T10:30:00.003-06:00

As I've noted before, I've been reading the Journal of Discourses lately. It's occurred to me that the leaders of the church were more apologist oriented in those
days. With the exception of Elder Holland's recent General Conference talk, modern day LDS seldom here talks that have an apologetic flavor to them.

One interesting sermon was delivered by Elder Orson Pratt entitled "Distinguishing Characteristics Between the Latter-Day Saints and the Various Religious Denominations of Christendom."

I include here an interesting part of his sermon about the need for divine authority to administer baptism.

But suppose we speak still further on one principle, and that is the authority to baptize. I might be baptized by a person whom the Lord had neither called nor sent, and that baptism would never be acknowledged in the eternal worlds. I might be ever so sincere, and I might receive the ordinance from the hands of a man who, I really supposed, had the authority and who was a good, moral, upright man, and yet that baptism would not be acceptable in the sight of God, unless he did truly have divine authority.

How am I to know whether a man has divine authority or not? It is one of the easiest things in the world to know. I will tell you how you may know a man who has divine authority from one who has not. If you find a man who, though he may profess to be a Christian minister, says he does not believe in any later revelations than those given to St. John the Divine, and that he was the last to whom the Lord revealed himself, you may know that that man has no authority from God. Why not? Because the Bible says—"No man taketh this honor unto himself"—speaking of the Priesthood—"Save he be called of God as was Aaron." Now, turn to the Bible and see how Aaron was called, see if he was not called by name, by new revelation: that is, it was a new revelation to him. See if he was not called through Moses, the servant of God, who received a revelation commanding him to set apart his brother Aaron to the Priest's office, directing him what ordinance to use, how to set him apart, and giving all the particulars of his calling and ordination to the ministry, and what his duties were to be after ordination. All this was given by new revelation. No man can receive the Priesthood, neither officiate in its ordinances acceptably, unless he is called of God as was Aaron. If Aaron was called by new revelation, then all others who have this authority must be called in the same way, or their authority is not valid, and all ordinances under it are good for nothing.

This is the reason why the Lord commanded this people—the Latter-day Saints—to re-baptize all persons who come to them professing to have been baptized before (Journal of Discourses, 16:293).

So, a couple of questions for my readers.

1. What do you think of Orson Pratt's argument?
2. Do you wish the brethren were more apologetics-oriented today?

Happy Easter!

2008-03-23T10:25:00.002-06:00

First of all, Happy Easter!

CNN, the Discovery Channel, PBS, and many others have shown documentary-type programs about Jesus the last few days. Something most had in common is that they discussed the star that signaled Jesus' birth. They then proceed to speculate about what may have happened to make such an impression on the "wise men." This gave me an idea for this post. Turns out, however, that I've already posted on the topic. So, I repeat it here for your viewing pleasure:

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible reads "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him...When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was" (Matthew 2:1-2,9). This star seems to appear in the east.

The Book of Mormon prophet Samuel predicted this sign would happen in the New World, but with different terminology. Later, Nephi reports that the sign came to pass.

"And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you" (Helaman 14:5).

"And it came to pass also that a new star did appear, according to the word" (3 Nephi 1:21).

These passages indicated that the star is to "arise" or "appear" but does not mention anything about it being in the east.

Perhaps you're wondering what my point is. Perhaps this will make it clear. According to the translators of the ESV, Matt 2:1-2,9 should be translated:

"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.'...After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was."

In other words, a new star appearing "in the east" is an idiom that means "a new star arises" or comes to be. This is reflected quite well in the Book of Mormon where it is not predicted that the start will be "in the east," but that it will "arise" or "appear." This is, at worst, another example of a lucky guess on Joseph Smith's part. At best, it is another evidence for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon.

Update

2008-03-21T11:42:00.002-06:00

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. I've been pretty under the weather. I can't seem to shake this cold. To top it off, I'm behind in school and am having some car problems. If everything goes well, I'll be back on schedule by Monday. I have a few post ideas and will be back with them soon.

Thanks for your patience!

Plurality of Gods and 1 Corinthians 8:5-6

2008-03-14T10:17:00.005-06:00

It is well known that Joseph Smith quoted 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 as evidence of a plurality of gods.

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God—that is pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all. But if Joseph Smith says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify him! Crucify him!" Mankind verily say that the Scriptures are with them. Search the Scriptures, for they testify of things that these apostates would gravely pronounce blasphemy. Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are.
I say there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal existence of eternal time. Hath he beheld the eternal world, and is he authorized to say that there is only one God? He makes himself a fool if he thinks or says so, and there is an end of his career or progress in knowledge. He cannot obtain all knowledge, for he has sealed up the gate to it. Some say I do not interpret the Scripture the same as they do. They say it means the heathen's gods. Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many; and that makes a plurality of Gods, in spite of the whims of all men. Without a revelation, I am not going to give them the knowledge of the God of heaven. You know and I testify that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods. I have it from God, and get over it if you can. I have a witness of the Holy Ghost, and a testimony that Paul had no allusion to the heathen gods in the text" (Joseph Smith, The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. p. 370-371).

As you can see, he believed the passage referred to real gods that exist. This, however, does not negate the fact that we only have one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ. He also made clear that he knew his critics believed that the passage had reference to heathen or false gods. He denies that saying he received by revelation the fact that it didn't have reference to them.

The criticism he mentioned is still the same today. I quote from CARM:

The key to understanding this scripture is the term "so-called." Paul is teaching us that there are not many gods. Rather, he is teaching us that there are many that are "called" gods but are not really gods. We can see this elsewhere when Paul says in Gal. 4:8, "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods." We can see that the Bible teaches that there is only one God, yet people believe in other gods. In reality these other gods do not exist.

What is so interesting about this debate for me is the fact that the renowned scholar, disciple, and Christian Origen (185-251 AD) also believed the passage had reference to real gods.

There are some gods of whom God is god, as we hear in prophecy, "Thank ye the God of gods," and "The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth." Now God, according to the Gospel, "is not the God of the dead but of the living." Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says, "As there are gods many and lords many," and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing. Now there are, besides the gods of whom God is god, certain others, who are called thrones, and other called dominions, lordships, also, and powers in addition to these.(In Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF] 9:315)

This divinity of mankind is made possible through Jesus Christ (the "first-born of all creation"). He was the first to become divine.

And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. (ANF 9:323)

Apparently some landed the criticism that this doctrine would somehow demote God and make him less than what He is (much the same way the LDS have been ridiculed for "demoting" God). Origin responded:

Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. (ANF 9:323)

I find it interesting that this concept of "thrones," "dominions," "powers," etc also appear in LDS scriptures, but not in the Bible, especially in the context of the plurality of gods and/or exaltation.

For example

A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. (D&C 121:28-29)

And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.
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 call power, and the angels are subject unto them. (D&C 132:19-20)

A search of the Bible does not turn up such terminology: http://scriptures.lds.org/en/search?type=words&last=%22thrones%22%2C+%22gods%22&help=&wo=checked&search=thrones%2C+dominions&do=Search&iw=scriptures&tx=checked&af=checked&hw=checked&sw=checked&bw=1 except in Col. 1:16 which does not mention gods or exaltation.

Irenaeus also had something to say about the issue of exaltation and uses terminology also found in D&C 132.

For there is the one Son, who accomplished His Father's will; and one human race also in which the mysteries of God are wrought, "which the angels desire to look into;" and they are not able to search out the wisdom of God, by means of which His handiwork, confirmed and incorporated with His Son, is brought to perfection; that His offspring, the First-begotten Word, should descend to the creature (facturam), that is, to what had been moulded (plasma), and that it should be contained by Him; and, on the other hand, the creature should contain the Word, and ascend to Him, passing beyond the angels,and be made after the image and likeness of God. (ANF 1:567)

It would seem that this is a repeat of the doctrine that the Word became man so that men may become gods (or "Words"). Interestingly, we must "pass beyond the angels" in the process. This is similar to the terminology in D&C 132:19-20.

All the World Could not Contain the Books

2008-03-09T09:56:00.003-06:00

I've been reading quite a bit of the Journal of Discourses lately as the last few posts indicate. I have found all sorts of interesting things from very speculative stuff to some really great insights. Yesterday I read this one.

Commenting on John 21:25 ("And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."), Brigham Young said:

Allow me to explain this text. The Apostle could not possibly mean what the language of the quotation implies—that the whole earth would have been covered with books to a certain depth; no, but he meant, by that saying, there would have been more written than the world of mankind would receive, or credit. The people then were as they are in this day—they are continually reaching after something that is not revealed, when there is more written already than they can comprehend. Instead of saying the world could not contain the books, we will say there would have been more written than the people would carry out in their lives (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 2:3)

The principle he seemed to be getting at is that what we have in the scriptures is limited to what we are willing to receive at this time. If we were more like those people of the City of Enoch, God would reveal to us many more things that we do not now know. As a LDS Christian, I have no problem with this concept.

Those who are non-LDS Christians, can you accept the possibility that God would reveal more if we were to understand and live more perfectly what he has already revealed?

Why Persecution? Part II.

2008-03-05T21:41:00.004-07:00

From another sermon by Brigham Young:

Christ is the light of the world, and lighteth every man that cometh into it. Were it not for the light that is in the people, they would not hate us... The light that is in them-The Spirit of the Almighty that rests on the nations; which proves the old Scriptures to be true, where they state that the report of the work that the Lord would bring forth in the last days should make the people tremble and quake. The light that is in them convicts them and teaches them that the doctrine the Elders of Israel preach among them is the Gospel of salvation; and say they, "We will not have it." Have you not heard many of them say that they would rather go to hell than believe it? "I will not believe what you preach, though I go to hell for disobeying it."

That Spirit that is in them-the inspiration of the Almighty which giveth understanding-convinces them that the doctrine is true. Were it false doctrine, it would be thought no more of than any other of the numerous isms in the world. They would pass by it as kindly and as easily as they do Socialism, or any other doctrine. But it convicts the people. Am I sorry for them? I am. My soul aches for them, because they cannot resolve and act in accordance with the dictates of that Spirit which ever prompts the human heart aright. But rise up and declare, "We will not believe this doctrine." What then? You must suffer. Thousands are suffering now; ministers are groaning in pulpits, and deacons and lay members are groaning in congregations: there are groans in secret places, in public places, in highways and by-ways: everywhere people are in pain, in sorrow, in misery; and, in short, are in hell. What is the matter? "'Mormonism' is yet in existence-it is not destroyed." Why can they not muster courage enough to say, "Our independent organizations we will use, and will not suffer the Devil, nor fathers, mothers, priests, neighbours, worldly reputation, riches, or anything else, to deter us from embracing and practising the principles of eternal life?" That course would at once start them on the road to happiness. (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 7:5-6).

Why Persecution?

2008-03-01T22:46:00.006-07:00

It is no secret that the Latter-day Saints have suffered a great deal of persecution throughout our history. We are the only group of US citizens that actually had an extermination order placed on our heads by our own government (Missouri, 1838). I was fascinated tonight as I read an interesting sermon by Brigham Young that answers the question of why the Latter-day Saints have been persecuted. I here quote what he said in part for your enjoyment.

We have been persecuted because there is a conviction, so far as [people] have heard the Gospel preached, that we have the truth. This is the cause of the opposition against us.

Would a priest of any denomination oppose 'Mormonism,' if he was not convinced that it is true? No. Were a man to come into this congregation and relate something that every man, woman, and child present knew to be false, who would take the trouble to disprove it? We all know the statement to be false; consequently, will [we] not take pains to oppose it? On the other hand, were there no conviction in the sound of the Gospel to the minds of the people—that it is true—that it is of and from God, who would take pains to oppose it? Let a person go into a [Christian congregation] and try to prove that Jesus was an impostor, that every system of religion is false, and that the Bible is a matter of speculation got up by selfish divines expressly for their own benefit; and who in that congregation would deem it worth while to oppose views so erroneous to the minds of those who have heard from Sabbath to Sabbath, the doctrines of the Gospel preached, so far as they understand them? No one, because to them the speaker's views would be so obviously false (Brigham Young in Journal of Discourses, 8:131).

Good Cross References that Aren't there

2008-03-01T08:31:00.005-07:00

On a message board that I frequent someone started a post asking for people to give good cross references that are not in the LDS edition of the scriptures. I added a few of my own and found some of the others really interesting. I add them here for your enjoyment.

1 Nephi 4:13 (Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief).

and

Matthew 5:29 (And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.)

---------------
Jacob 1:19 (And we did magnify our office unto the Lord, taking upon us the responsibility, answering the sins of the people upon our own heads if we did not teach them the word of God with all diligence; wherefore, by laboring with our might their blood might not come upon our garments; otherwise their blood would come upon our garments, and we would not be found spotless at the last day.)

and

Ezekiel 3:18 (When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.)

--------------
Hebrews 10:26-27 (26 For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins,
27 But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries.)

with

Mosiah 2:36-37 (36 And now, I say unto you, my brethren, that after ye have known and have been taught all these things, if ye should transgress and go contrary to that which has been spoken, that ye do withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—
37 I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples.)

------------

2 Nephi 25:23 For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

with

Alma 24:11 And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—

---------------

Below are the cross references I contributed to the list:

Matthew 5:48--Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

with

Luke 6:40--The disciple is not above his master: but every one that is perfect shall be as his master.

-----------------
John 5:29--And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

with

D&C 76:15-18--For while we were doing the work of translation, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given unto us as follows—
16 Speaking of the resurrection of the dead, concerning those who shall hear the voice of the Son of Man:
17 And shall come forth; they who have done good, in the resurrection of the just; and they who have done evil, in the resurrection of the unjust.
18 Now this caused us to marvel, for it was given unto us of the Spirit.

------------

John 6:44, 65---No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day...And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.

with

2 Nephi 26:24-28, 33---He doeth not anything save it be for the benefit of the world; for he loveth the world, even that he layeth down his own life that he may draw all men unto him. Wherefore, he commandeth none that they shall not partake of his salvation.
25 Behold, doth he cry unto any, saying: Depart from me? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; but he saith: Come unto me all ye ends of the earth, buy milk and honey, without money and without price.
26 Behold, hath he commanded any that they should depart out of the synagogues, or out of the houses of worship? Behold, I say unto you, Nay.
27 Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance.
28 Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden.
....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.

&

John 12:32--And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me.

&

3 Nephi 27:13-15--13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you—that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me.
14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil—
15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.

----------
2 Corinthians 3:18--But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

with

2 Corinthians 4:4--...the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God,...

and

Col. 1:14--[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature

---------

Philippians 2:6-- [Christ], being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

with

John 5:18--Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God.

-----------
Revelation 22:18-19-- For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

with

Revelation 1:1-3,11--The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand...
11 Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia;

---------

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.

with

D&C 34: 1-3--My son Orson, hearken and hear and behold what I, the Lord God, shall say unto you, even Jesus Christ your Redeemer;
2 The light and the life of the world, a light which shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehendeth it not;
3 Who [Jesus Christ] so loved the world that he gave his own life, that as many as would believe might become the sons of God.

"Angel" Always Equals "Another Gospel?"

2008-02-25T10:41:00.002-07:00

Many of our critics have often quoted Galatians 1:6-8 as a proof text that the teachings of the LDS Church equals another gospel. In my experience, often this passage is quoted and the interpretation is generally as follows:

1) Paul warned about the possibility of "another" gospel being preached by an "angel."
2) Mormons believe that the angel Moroni (among others) came and "restored" the gospel.

Therefore,

3) Mormonism is "another" gospel.

There is, of course, a logical fallacy here (high five to the first person who points it out by name!). Besides the logical fallacy, what do our critics do with Revelation 14:6?

6 And I saw another angel fly in the midst of heaven, having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people,

Clearly there is a difference between "another" gospel and the "everlasting" gospel. So, can an angel (theoretically and biblically) come to preach the gospel to people on earth? I'd say not only can it happen, but it was predicted that it would happen.

I submit that Paul's warning in Galatians only shows that the apostasy was well underway then and he knew it. Thus the need in the last days for an angel to come and reverse the work of the devil ("And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations" [Revelation 13:7].) by restoring the everlasting gospel to "every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people."

Mormon Men Only Become Gods?

2008-02-23T15:31:00.006-07:00

One common objection I've read and heard from critics of the LDS Church is that we (the LDS) supposedly believe that Mormon men will become gods while women (presumably) are something less (slaves, perhaps?). This, however, is a clear falsehood as demonstrated by our scripture:

"And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye [note: "ye" is plural] shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever. Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them" (Doctrine & Covenants 132:19-20).

What's so interesting about this accusation is that this scripture here quoted is basically the only LDS scripture on the topic of "becoming gods." If our critics really were concerned about understanding our doctrine, you would think they would consult our actual teachings on the topic.

Render to Caesar

2008-02-20T20:30:00.002-07:00

13 And they send unto [Jesus] certain of the Pharisees and of the Herodians, to catch him in his words.
14 And when they were come, they say unto him, Master, we know that thou art true, and carest for no man: for thou regardest not the person of men, but teachest the way of God in truth: Is it lawful to give tribute to Caesar, or not?
15 Shall we give, or shall we not give? But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said unto them, Why tempt ye me? bring me a penny, that I may see it.
16 And they brought it. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? And they said unto him, Caesar’s.
17 And Jesus answering said unto them, Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s. And they marvelled at him (Mark 12:13-17).

Elder James E. Talmage's commentary on this passage is insightful. I here quote it in part:

"One may draw a lesson if he will, from the association of our Lord's words with the occurrence of Caesar's image on the coin. It was that effigy with its accompanying superscription that gave special point to His memorable instruction, 'Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's.' This was followed by the further injunction: 'and unto God the things that are God's.' Every human soul is stamped with the image and superscription of God, however blurred and indistinct the line may have become through the corrosion or attrition of sin; and as unto Caesar should be rendered the coins upon which his effigy appeared, so unto God should be given the souls that bear His image. Render unto the world the stamped pieces that are made legally current by the insignia of worldly powers, and give unto God and His service, yourselves--the divine mintage of His eternal realm" (Talmage, James E. Jesus the Christ, 507.).

Is this passage, therefore, teaching that man is in the physical image of God much like the coin was the physical representation or copy of Caesar? If so, this would confirm the LDS belief that man is created literally in God's physical image as per Genesis 1:26-27.

The Earthly and the Heavenly

2008-02-17T11:05:00.004-07:00

John 3:3-8 is an important scripture to most Christians and to LDS Christians in particular. Most of my protestant friends have suggested that the scripture speaks of spiritual rebirth through the act of being born again by the Holy Spirit. LDS have generally interpreted the scripture to refer to the ordinances of baptism in water and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying of hands. This interpretation was common also among the early Christians (see Born again translation).

In either interpretation, this passage of scripture is fairly important. Protestantism teaches that the act of being "born again" is the essence of Christianity itself. It is the one act for which nearly all sermons are preached and it is the very center of Protestant teaching.

On the other hand, LDS teaching generally assumes (except the teaching done by the missionaries) one has been born again already through baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost. It is not the center of Christian teaching for LDS, but rather only the beginning of Christian teaching--the gate, the entrance into the kingdom, the first principles and ordinances of the gospel, the milk. There is much more to do and to understand after one is born again in LDS thought.

After Jesus finished telling Nicodemus that a man must be born of water and the Spirit, Nicodemus was confused. Jesus in response replied, "If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things" (John 3:12)?

Does it seem odd to anyone else that Jesus would call being "born again" (the Greek actually means "born from above") "earthly things"? What are these "heavenly things" that he isn't talking about? From the Protestant perspective that being born again is the very heart and soul of Christianity, it is strange indeed. But from an LDS perspective that being born again is only the beginning, elementary steps of salvation, it makes perfect sense.

Interestingly, Ignatius wrote an epistle to his Christian friends in which he said,

"I am able to write to you of heavenly things, but I fear lest I should do you an injury. Know me from myself. For I am cautious lest ye should not be able to receive [such knowledge], and should be perplexed. For even I, not because I am in bonds, and am able to know heavenly things, and the places of angels, and the stations of the powers that are seen and that are not seen, am on this account a disciple; for I am far short of the perfection which is worthy of God" (Ignatius, Romans 9, in Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:104, brackets in original.).

So, these "heavenly things" are things reserved for some of those who have already become Christians, who have already been born again, who have already received "the earthly things."

I think there is a clearly parallel to LDS thought concerning entrance into the church through repentance, baptism, and the Holy Ghost and then the later temple ordinances. The first are "the earthly things" while the temple ordinances are the "heavenly things."

The Love of God

2008-02-14T20:32:00.002-07:00

Since today is Valentine's Day, I think it appropriate to suggest that each of us not only consider the love we have for some special individual but that we consider the love that God has for us. While there are many passages of scripture that could be used that speak of this love, this one is perhaps my favorite (at this moment!).

"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8:32)

Often before reading this verse I will ask the question, "Out of all people that ever lived, who do you think God loves the most?" The answer among those who are reflective is that he loves his Beloved Son, Jesus Christ more than anyone else. I then ask if anything in this universe could be more important to God than His Son. The answer inevitably comes that there isn't. Paul's logic is perfect--if God delivered up That which he loves more than anything else for our sakes, why would He then hesitate to gives us anything or hold anything back from us? Truly, we can trust that God will never short us any blessings, opportunities, dominion, power, or anything else. To do so would lesson the value of what He has already given us in His Son. Truly, God so loved the world.

Call for Ideas

2008-02-13T13:35:00.001-07:00

I have to be honest, I have no systematic plan for what to post on the blog. I post things on a whim mostly. I'd love any input you have on what topics interest you. I want my blog to be useful to those who come here and the best way to find that out is if you would tell me. Please email me your ideas: DispensatorMysteriorumDei@live.com.

I'll try to cover any topics you suggest as well as whatever whims I continue to have. I hope this blog is insightful and useful to you all.

Apostasy and Restoration

2008-02-12T13:01:00.000-07:00

I taught an Elder's Quorum lesson about a year ago on the topic of the apostasy. Here's some of the information I gathered for the class as a handout. It is a handout of quotes and references to information. None of it is my own commentary except this little bit at the beginning in italics.

The Great apostasy
and the marvelous restoration

This handout contains information that will aid you in your study of the apostasy and the restoration. For more information please see the list of books and articles under “Learn More.”

Why Study the Apostasy?

All the men holding the priesthood should have a thorough understanding of the development of false doctrine and the gradual change which took place, after the death of the apostles, which transformed the Church of Jesus Christ into a system as far removed from the primitive Church as are the poles of our hemispheres (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 3:268)
___________________________

True doctrine, understood, changes attitudes and behavior. The study of the doctrines of the gospel will improve behavior quicker than a study of behavior will improve behavior. (Boyd K. Packer, “Little Children.” Ensign, November 1986.)

Eusebius on the Apostasy

The Church up to that time [the death of the apostles] had remained a pure and uncorrupted virgin, since, if there were any that attempted to corrupt the sound norm of the preaching of salvation, they lay until then concealed in obscure darkness. But when the sacred college of apostles had suffered death in various forms, and the generation of those that had been deemed worthy to hear the inspired wisdom with their own ears had passed away, then the league of godless error took its rise as a result of the folly of heretical teachers, who, because none of the apostles was still living, attempted henceforth, with a bold face, to proclaim, in opposition to the preaching of the truth, the ‘knowledge which is falsely so-called’ (Eusebius [270-340] quoting Hegesippus [110-180] in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, Series 2, 1:164).

New Testament Scriptures that Predict the Great Apostasy

Acts 20:29-30; 2 Peter 2:1-3 (cf. Jude 1:3-4, 17);
2 Thessalonians 2:3 (cf. Ephesians 2:19-22); Revelation 13:7 (cf. Revelation 14:6);
1 Timothy 4:1-4; Revelation 12:1-6 (cf. D&C 5:14; 33:5)

Commentary on 2 Thessalonians 2:3

By this apostasy we are not to understand a defection in the state, or from civil government, but in spiritual or religious matters, from sound doctrine, instituted worship and church government, and a holy life. The apostle speaks of some very great apostasy, not only of some converted Jews or Gentiles, but such as should be very general, though gradual, and should give occasion to the revelation of rise of antichrist, that man of sin. This, he says (2 Th. 2:5), he had told them of when he was with them, with design, no doubt, that they should not take offence nor be stumbled at it. And let us observe that no sooner was Christianity planted and rooted in the world than there began to be a defection in the Christian church. It was so in the Old Testament church; presently after any considerable advance made in religion there followed a defection: soon after the promise there was revolting; for example, soon after men began to call upon the name of the Lord all flesh corrupted their way, - soon after the covenant with Noah the Babel-builders bade defiance to heaven, - soon after the covenant with Abraham his seed degenerated in Egypt, - soon after the Israelites were planted in Canaan, when the first generation was worn off, they forsook God and served Baal, - soon after God's covenant with David his seed revolted, and served other gods, - soon after the return out of captivity there was a general decay of piety, as appears by the story of Ezra and Nehemiah; and therefore it was no strange thing that after the planting of Christianity there should come a falling away (Matthew Henry [1662-1714].Commentary on the Whole Bible).

We have the original word apostasía in our word apostasy; and by this term we understand a dereliction of the essential principles of religious truth - either a total abandonment of Christianity itself, or such a corruption of its doctrines as renders the whole system completely inefficient to salvation (Adam Clarke [1715-1832]. Commentary on the Bible).

The Roman pontiff exercised secular as well as spiritual authority; and in the eleventh century arrogated to himself the title of Pope, signifying Father, in the sense of paternal ruler in all things. During the twelfth and thirteenth centuries the temporal authority of the pope was superior to that of kings and emperors; and the Roman church became the despotic potentate of nations, and an autocrat above all secular states. Yet this church, reeking with the stench of worldly ambition and lust of dominance, audaciously claimed to be the Church established by Him who affirmed: “My kingdom is not of this world.” The arrogant assumptions of the Church of Rome were not less extravagant in spiritual than in secular administration. In her loudly asserted control over the spiritual destinies of the souls of men, she blasphemously pretended to forgive or retain individual sins, and to inflict or remit penalties both on earth and beyond the grave. She sold permission to commit sin and bartered for gold charters of indulgent forgiveness for sins already done. Her pope, proclaiming himself the vicar of God, sat in state to judge as God Himself; and by such blasphemy fulfilled the prophecy of Paul following his warning in relation to the awful conditions antecedent to the second coming of the Christ: “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.” (James E. Talmage. Jesus the Christ, 693.)

Commentary on 1 Timothy 4:1

They will apostatize from the faith, i.e. from Christianity; renouncing the whole system in effect, by bringing in doctrines which render its essential truths null and void, or denying and renouncing such doctrines as are essential to Christianity as a system of salvation. A man may hold all the truths of Christianity, and yet render them of none effect by holding other doctrines which counteract their influence; or he may apostatize by denying some essential doctrine, though he bring in nothing heterodox (Adam Clarke. Commentary on the Bible).
___________________________

The Greek word here - apostesontai - is that from which we have derived the word “apostatize,” and would be properly so rendered here. The meaning is, that they would “apostatize” from the belief of the truths of the gospel. It does not mean that, as individuals, they would have been true Christians; but that there would be a departure from the great doctrines which constitute the Christian faith. The ways in which they would do this are immediately specified, showing what the apostle meant here by departing from the faith. They would give heed to seducing spirits, to the doctrines of devils, etc. The use of the word “some” does not imply that the number would be small. The meaning is, that “certain persons” would thus depart, or that “there would be” an apostasy of the kind here mentioned, in the last days. From the parallel passage in 2 Th. 2:3, it would seem that this was to be an extensive apostasy (Albert Barnes [1798-1870] Notes on the Bible).
___________________________

In Paul's first letter to Timothy, he prophesied concerning the departure of some of the saints from the faith...This prophecy has a number of features that make it of considerable interest. First of all, Paul specifically stated that his belief in the future defection was the result of revelation. In fact, not only did the Spirit speak these words to Paul, but it did so “expressly.” The chronological note is also important. Paul used the term “latter times” (hú fneroi kairoí) to denote the period in which the developments that he foretold would take place. In the ultimate sense, the period of time in which we now live can be called “the latter times” better than any other. As we learn through modern revelation, our day is the dispensation of the fulness of times — the preparatory era that precedes the Second Coming of the Savior. Yet Paul spoke using a different definition for “latter times.” His focus was on the last days of the Christianity of his era, the “latter times” of the early church.

A few decades after Paul foretold the departure of some from the faith in the “latter times,” Jude announced to his readers that they were then in “the last time” (é fnhatos chrs, Jude 1:17-19). Similarly, John expressed to the readers of his first letter the certainty of the fact that they themselves were in “the last hour” (escháebar; hoabar;, 1 John 2:18-19). With the revealed knowledge of important future events, John and Jude knew that they were not in the final era of the world. But their words reveal the fact that they knew that they were in the final days of the Christian church. That was the period of time concerning which the spirit spoke “expressly” (1 Timothy 4:1) to Paul.

...[T]he departure from the faith would be a rebellion against true principles of doctrine. Paul wrote that those who would depart would give heed to what he calls “seducing spirits” and “doctrines of devils.” It must be emphasized that what Paul saw was not an abandonment of religion but a shifting of loyalties from “the faith” to a false faith. Accompanying this defection would be the manifestation of the negative character traits cited in 1 Timothy 4:2.

1 Timothy 4:3 is interesting because it mentions two examples of the false ideas that the counterfeit religious system would foster: a prohibition against marriage and a prohibition against certain foods. Beyond that the Apostle gave no further details (Kent P. Jackson in John M. Lundquist and Stephen D. Ricks, eds., By Study and Also by Faith, 1: 89).

The Weakness of the Protestant Position

Many years ago I had an interesting conversation with a man who was a member of the Roman Catholic church. He was a great scholar; he must have had a dozen languages at his tongue's end, and seemed to know all about history, science, law, philosophy, and all the rest of it. We were frank and friendly with each other, and one day he said to me:

“You ‘Mormons’ are all ignoramuses. You don't even know the strength of your own position. It is so strong that there is only one other position tenable in the whole Christian world, and that is the position of the Roman Catholic church. The issue is between 'Mormonism' and Catholicism. If you are right, we are wrong. If we are right, you are wrong, and that's all there is to it. These Protestant sects haven't a leg to stand on; for if we are right, we cut them off long ago, as apostates; and if we are wrong, they are wrong with us, for they were a part of us and came out of us. If we have the apostolic succession from St. Peter, as we claim, there was no need of Joseph Smith and 'Mormonism;' but if we have not that apostolic succession, then such a man as Joseph Smith was necessary, and 'Mormonism's position is the only consistent one. It is either the perpetuation of the Gospel from ancient times or the restoration of the Gospel in latter days.”

“Doctor,” said I, “that is a very clear and concise statement, and I agree with it in almost every particular. But don't deceive yourself with the notion that we ‘Mormons’ don't know the strength of our own position. We know it better than you do. We know it better than any other people can know it. We haven't all been to been college, we can't all speak the dead languages, and we may be ignoramuses as you say; but we know we are right, and we know you are wrong.” I was just as frank with him as he had been with me (Elder Orson F. Whitney, Conference Report, April 1928, 60.).
___________________________

Is it to be wondered at, that from the sixteenth century onward, churches of man's contriving have multiplied with phenomenal rapidity? Churches and churchly organizations professing Christianity as their creed have come to be numbered by hundreds. On every side is heard in this day, "Lo, here is Christ" or "Lo, there." There are sects named from the circumstances of their origin-as the Church of England; others after their famous founders or promoters-as Lutheran, Calvinist, Wesleyan; some are known by peculiarities of doctrine or plan of administration-as Methodist, Presbyterian, Baptist, Congregationalist; but down to the third decade of the nineteenth century there was no church on earth affirming name or title as the Church of Jesus Christ. The only organization called a church existing at that time and venturing to assert claim to authority by succession was the Catholic church, which for centuries had been apostate and wholly bereft of divine authority or recognition. If the "mother church" be without a valid priesthood, and devoid of spiritual power, how can her offspring derive from her the right to officiate in the things of God? Who would dare to affirm that man can originate a priesthood which God is bound to honor and acknowledge? Granted that men may and do create among themselves societies, associations, sects, and even "churches" if they choose so to designate their organizations; granted that they may prescribe rules, formulate laws, and devise plans of operation, discipline, and government, and that all such laws, rules, and schemes of administration are binding upon those who assume membership-granted all these rights and powers-whence can such human institutions derive the authority of the Holy Priesthood, without which there can be no Church of Christ (James E. Talmage, Jesus the Christ, 698.)?

Restoration Seekers

Rodger Williams. In June 1638 he became a Baptist; he was immersed by Ezekiel Hollyman, and in turn immersed Hollyman and ten others. This was the first Baptist church on the American Continent. But a few months afterwards he renounced his rebaptism on the ground that Hollyman was unbaptized, and therefore unauthorized to administer the rite to him. He remained for the rest of his life a ‘Seeker,’ cut loose from all existing Church organizations and usages, longing for a true Church of God, but unable to find one on the face of the whole earth. He conceived ‘that the apostasy of Antichrist hath so far corrupted all that there can be no recovery out of that apostasy till Christ send forth new apostles to plant churches anew’ (Schaff, Philip. The Creeds of Christendom, 3:851).

Thomas Jefferson. I hold the precepts of Jesus, as delivered by himself, to be the most pure, benevolent, and sublime which have ever been preached to man. I adhere to the principles of the first age; and consider all subsequent innovations as corruptions of this religion, having no foundation in what came from him....If the freedom of religion, guaranteed to us by law in theory, can ever rise in practice under the overbearing inquisition of public opinion, truth will prevail over fanaticism, and the genuine doctrines of Jesus, so long perverted by his pseudo-priests, will again be restored to their original purity. This reformation will advance with the other improvements of the human mind, but too late for me to witness it (Thomas Jefferson in 1820, quoted in Cousins, Norman, ed. “In God We Trust”: The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers, 156.).

Joseph Smith Sr. What he could not embrace was the institutional religion of his time. The reason became clear in one of his prophetic dreams. In the first dream, around 1811, Joseph Sr. found himself traveling in a barren field covered with dead fallen timber: “Not a vestige of life, either animal or vegetable, could be seen; besides, to render the scene still more dreary, the most death-like silence prevailed, no sound of anything animate could be heard in all the field.” The attendant spirit, according to Lucy, told Joseph Sr. that “this field is the world which now lieth inanimate and dumb, in regard to the true religion or plan of salvation.” Then appeared “all manner of beasts, horned cattle, and roaring animals...tearing the earth, tossing their horns, and bellowing most terrifically.” That was the religious world as Joseph Sr. saw it: empty and silent, or fiercely hostile to true wisdom and understanding. He concluded from his dream that the “class of religionists” knew no more of the Kingdom of God than “such as made no profession of religion whatever” (Bushman, Richard Lyman. Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 25-26).

Robert Mason and Wilford Woodruff. The second reason for my peculiar belief in such principles, teachings, and doctrines was that in the days of my youth I was taught by an aged man named Robert Mason, who lived in Sainsbury, Connecticut....Father Mason did not claim that he had any authority to officiate in the ordinances of the gospel, nor did he believe that such authority existed on the earth....He told me that the day was near when the Lord would establish His Church and Kingdom upon the earth with all its ancient gifts and blessings. He said that such a work would commence upon the earth before he died, but that he would not live to partake of its blessings. He said that I should live to do so, and that I should become a conspicuous actor in that kingdom.

The last time I ever saw him he related to me the following vision which he had in his field in open day: “I was carried away in a vision and found myself in the midst of a vast orchard of fruit trees. I became hungry and wandered through this vast orchard searching for fruit to eat, but I found none. While I stood in amazement finding no fruit in the midst of so many trees, they began to fall to the ground as if torn up by a whirlwind. They continued to fall until there was not a tree standing in the whole orchard. I immediately saw thereafter shoots springing up from the roots and forming themselves into young and beautiful trees. These budded, blossomed, and brought forth fruit which ripened and was the most beautiful to look upon of anything my eyes had ever beheld. I stretched forth my hand and plucked some of the fruit. I gazed upon it with delight; but when I was about to eat of it, the vision closed and I did not taste the fruit. At the close of the vision I bowed down in humble prayer and asked the Lord to show me the meaning of the vision. Then the voice of the Lord came to me saying: ‘Son of man, thou hast sought me diligently to know the truth concerning my Church and Kingdom among men. This is to show you that my Church is not organized among men in the generation to which you belong; but in the days of your children the Church and Kingdom of God shall be made manifest with all the gifts and the blessings enjoyed by the Saints in past ages. You shall live to be made acquainted with it, but shall not partake of its blessings before you depart this life. You will be blest of the Lord after death because you have followed the dictation of my Spirit in this life.’”

When Father Mason had finished relating the vision and its interpretation, he said, calling me by my Christian name: “Wilford, I shall never partake of this fruit in the flesh, but you will and you will become a conspicuous actor in the new kingdom.” He then turned and left me. These were the last words he ever spoke to me upon the earth....The vision was given to him about the year 1800. He related it to me in 1830, the spring in which the Church was organized. Three years later when I was baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, almost the first person I thought of was this prophet, Robert Mason. Upon my arrival in Missouri with Zion's Camp, I wrote him a long letter in which I informed him that I had found the true gospel with all its blessings; that the authority of the Church of Christ had been restored to the earth as he had told me it would be; that I had received the ordinances of baptism and the laying on of hands; that I knew for myself that God had established through Joseph Smith, the Prophet, the Church of Christ upon the earth.

He received my letter with great joy and had it read over to him many times. He handled it as he had handled the fruit in the vision. He was very aged and soon died without having the privilege of receiving the ordinances of the gospel at the hands of an elder of the Church. The first opportunity I had after the truth of baptism for the dead was revealed, I went forth and was baptized for him in the temple font at Nauvoo
(Wilford Woodruff in Cowley, Matthias F. Wilford Woodruff, His Life and Labors, 18).

Witnesses of the Marvelous Restoration

The Lord. Wherefore I the Lord, knowing the calamity which should come upon the inhabitants of the earth, called upon my servant Joseph Smith, Jun., and spake unto him from heaven, and gave him commandments; and also gave commandments to others, that they should proclaim these things unto the world...that the fulness of my gospel might be proclaimed by the weak and the simple unto the ends of the world...and also that those to whom these commandments were given, might have power to lay the foundation of this church, and to bring it forth out of obscurity and out of darkness, the only true and living church upon the face of the whole earth, with which I, the Lord, am well pleased... (D&C 1:17-30)

The First Presidency. We solemnly declare that in these the latter-days, God has again spoken from the heavens through His chosen Prophet, Joseph Smith; that the Lord has, through that same Prophet, again revealed in its fulness His gospel,—the plan of life and salvation; that through that Prophet and his associates He has restored His holy Priesthood to the earth, from which it had been taken because of the wickedness of men; and that all the rights, powers, keys, and functions appertaining to the Priesthood as so restored are now vested in and exercised by the inspired leadership of His Church... (April 1942 Conference Report, 88)

President Spencer W. Kimball. In 1976 an area general conference was held in Copenhagen, Denmark. Following the closing session, President Kimball expressed a desire to visit the Vor Frue Church, where the Thorvaldsen statues of the Christus and of the Twelve Apostles stand. He had visited this some years before. Others of us had also seen it but some had not, and he felt we should all go there. The church was closed for renovation, nevertheless arrangements were quickly made for us to be admitted for a few minutes...To the front of the church, behind the altar, stands the familiar statue of the Christus...Along each side stand the statues of the Apostles, Peter at the front on the right side of the church, and the other Apostles in order...

Most of the group were near the rear of the chapel, where the custodian, through an interpreter, was giving some explanation. I stood with President Kimball, Elder Rex Pinegar, and President Bentine, the stake president, before the statue of Peter. In his hand, depicted in marble, is a set of heavy keys. President Kimball pointed to them and explained what they symbolized. Then, in an act I shall never forget, he turned to President Bentine and with unaccustomed sternness pointed his finger at him and said with firm, impressive words, “I want you to tell every Lutheran in Denmark that they do not hold the keys! I hold the keys! We hold the real keys and we use them every day.” This declaration and testimony from the prophet so affected me that I knew I would never forget it-the influence was powerfully spiritual and the impression was physical in its impact as well.

We walked to the other end of the chapel where the rest of the group were standing. Pointing to the statues, President Kimball said to the kind custodian who was showing us the building, “These are the dead Apostles. Here we have the living Apostles.” Pointing to me he said, “Elder Packer is an Apostle.” He designated the others and said, “Elder Monson and Elder Perry are Apostles, and I am an Apostle. We are the living Apostles. You read about seventies in the New Testament, and here are living seventies, Brother Pinegar and Brother Hales”(Boyd K. Packer, The Holy Temple, 84.).

Elder Orson F. Whitney. Seven hundred years before the birth of our Savior, a prophet of God upon the eastern hemisphere predicted the coming forth of “a marvelous work and a wonder.” “Mormonism,” so called, according to the faith of its adherents, is the fulfilment of that ancient prediction. And indeed it would be difficult to conceive of anything more marvelous, more wonderful, than the foundation facts upon which rests the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. What could be more strange, more unexpected, than the re-opening of the heavens in an age when it was believed and asserted that the heavens were permanently sealed, that God no longer spoke to man, that revelation had ceased, and that angels would never again commune with earth’s inhabitants? But lo! the heavens are opened; angels come to earth; and not only this, but God himself descends from his glorious throne and appears unto man, opening the last and greatest of the gospel dispensations. An angel reveals the hidden past of the American continent—the Book of Mormon, containing the fulness of the gospel, a history of the Americas in prehistoric times, and a prophecy of their wondrous future. An angel restores the Aaronic priesthood, which holds the keys of repentance and baptism; and other angels bring back the higher or Melchizedek priesthood, holding the keys of heavenly mysteries; and under this delegated divine authority, without which no man can lawfully represent God, or administer the sacred ordinances of the gospel, the Church of Christ is organized once more upon the earth. Truly, a marvelous work and a wonder—so marvelous, so wonderful, that most men reject it, deeming it a fable. And yet it is nothing more nor less than the plain fulfilment of prophecy.

This Church was founded for a definite purpose. It is not merely one more added to the hundreds of religious sects with which the world is filled. It is the lifted ensign for the gathering of God’s chosen Israel from the four quarters of the globe, for the purpose of building a Zion, the New Jerusalem, and preparing a people for the glorious coming of the Lord (Orson F. Whitney, October 1916 Conference Report, 52.).

Learn More

Early Christians in Disarray. Edited by Noel B. Reynolds
Lost Christianities. Bart Ehrman
Mormonism and Early Christianity. Hugh Nibley
Outlines of Ecclesiastical History. B. H. Roberts.
Restoring the Ancient Church. Barry Robert Bickmore
The Great Apostasy. James Talmage
The Inevitable Apostasy and the Promised Restoration. Tad R. Callister
The World and the Prophets. Hugh Nibley
“Apostasy and Restoration.” Dallin H. Oaks. Ensign, May 1995
“Early Signs of the Apostasy.” Kent P. Jackson. Ensign, Dec. 1984.
“From the Beginning” Elder Neal A. Maxwell. Ensign, Nov. 1993.
“The Great Apostasy as Seen by Eusebius.” Hyde M. Merrill. Ensign, Nov. 1972
“The Morning Breaks; the Shadows Flee.” Elder Bruce R. McConkie. Ensign, May 1978.
“Were an Apostasy and Restoration Predicted?” Barry R. Bickmore. Found at http://www.fairlds.org
“Whither the Early Church?” S. Kent Brown. Ensign, Oct. 1988.

Glowing Stones

2008-02-10T18:56:00.000-07:00

Today I thought I discovered an interesting parallel between Noah's ark and the barges used by the Jaradites as described in Ether. I wanted to blog on it, but it turns out, someone has already pointed out the parallels.

I recommend the article for your enjoyment: Glowing Stones in Ancient and Medieval Lore.

Saved by Grace After All We Can do

2008-02-09T12:10:00.000-07:00

One common criticism of the Book of Mormon is that it (supposedly) teaches that we are saved by grace only after we do all we can do for our own salvation. This criticism is based on this scripture:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do. (2 Nephi 25:23).

While it is true that some LDS have interpreted this scripture to mean we must first do all we can if we expect grace to operate in our behalf, critics have noted that no one really does all he can in order to qualify for grace. On this, I agree with the critics with one qualification: I don't think that's what the passage means.

One possible interpretation put forth by Stephen E. Robinson, Robert Millet and others is that this scripture means that we are "saved by grace" even after all we can do or apart from what we can do. The preposition "after" here should not be used in its temporal sense alone (referring to time order) but in the sense of "notwithstanding" such as in this sentence: "even after the policeman's warning he continued to speed" or "after all [id est, notwithstanding everything] he continues to speed."

Understood this way, the verse means we are saved by grace notwithstanding our best efforts. No matter how close to perfection my personal efforts may be, it is still only through grace that I can be saved since I will always be tainted by sin.

Another possible interpretation is that "all we can do" has reference to some specific thing we can do, namely repent and be forgiven. I like this interpretation best. Believing that all scripture is inspired by God, I believe one important way to interpret scripture is to look for common phrases or terminology throughout all scripture. This is one where doing so seems to bring out new meaning to this verse.

In the Book of Mormon, a few miraculously converted Nephites go and preach the gospel to some Lamanites who are also miraculously converted. These Lamanites gave up their past blood thirsty traditions and covenanted with God to no longer shed man's blood. Their leader, Anti-Nephi-Lehi, gave a rousing speech before they buried their weapons of war which is recorded in Alma 24.

8 And behold, I thank my great God that he has given us a portion of his Spirit to soften our hearts, that we have opened a correspondence with these brethren, the Nephites.
9 And behold, I also thank my God, that by opening this correspondence we have been convinced of our sins, and of the many murders which we have committed.
10 And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son.
11 And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—
12 Now, my best beloved brethren, since God hath taken away our stains, and our swords have become bright, then let us stain our swords no more with the blood of our brethren.
13 Behold, I say unto you, Nay, let us retain our swords that they be not stained with the blood of our brethren; for perhaps, if we should stain our swords again they can no more be washed bright through the blood of the Son of our great God, which shall be shed for the atonement of our sins.
14 And the great God has had mercy on us, and made these things known unto us that we might not perish; yea, and he has made these things known unto us beforehand, because he loveth our souls as well as he loveth our children; therefore, in his mercy he doth visit us by his angels, that the plan of salvation might be made known unto us as well as unto future generations.
15 Oh, how merciful is our God! And now behold, since it has been as much as we could do to get our stains taken away from us, and our swords are made bright, let us hide them away that they may be kept bright, as a testimony to our God at the last day, or at the day that we shall be brought to stand before him to be judged, that we have not stained our swords in the blood of our brethren since he imparted his word unto us and has made us clean thereby.

Ultimately, all we can do as mortals is "to repent of all our sins...and to get God to taken them away from our hearts" "through the merits of his Son."

If we were to return to 2 Nephi 25:23 and insert this meaning it would read:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after [we repent of all our sins and get God to take them away from our hearts through the merits of his Son].

To insist, as some critics have, that the Book of Mormon teaches salvation by works apart from grace is based [at best] in a misunderstanding of the Book of Mormon or [at worst] is based in purposeful deception.

"Therefore, cheer up your hearts, and remember that ye are free to act for yourselves—to choose the way of everlasting death or the way of eternal life. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, reconcile yourselves to the will of God, and not to the will of the devil and the flesh; and remember, after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved. Wherefore, may God raise you from death by the power of the resurrection, and also from everlasting death by the power of the atonement, that ye may be received into the eternal kingdom of God, that ye may praise him through grace divine. Amen" (2 Nephi 10:23-25).

"[T]here is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah" (2 Nephi 2:8).

End Times in LDS Thought

2008-02-07T19:54:00.000-07:00

I recently received this email from one of my readers:

"Andrew

How about a post on LDS Eschatology?

Do Mormons believe in things similar to evangelical 'end times' scenarios like....
A Rapture - 7 year tribulation with the beast/antichrist ruling a one world government - ending in Armageddon - and culminating in a millennium rule of Christ on earth.

Or more like...Christ returns - resurrection of the dead - millennial rule - eternity?

Thanks"

Thanks for the question. I must first say I've been very busy this week and haven't had the time I need to gather together much information on the topic. However, I will do my best to answer these questions in a straight-forward way.

Rapture and Tribulation

I have never read anything in LDS literature (or in the Bible for that matter!) that supports this concept of a rapture. As I understand this teaching, some Christians believe that 7 years (some 3 1/2 years) before Christ's coming, the saved will be taken off of planet earth while the devil is allowed free reign. This period will be accompanied by war, pestilence, disease, death, terrible wickedness and destruction. The anti-Christ will then reign over the earth under the direction of the devil. This will be brought to an end when Christ returns to earth, destroys the wicked, and begins his 1000 year reign with the saved.

This idea is often based on Matt. 24:41:

Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left.

In this belief system, those who are here "taken" are the righteous who are taken up to heaven before the tribulation. This is reflected in bumper stickers that I've seen that say "Caution, this car will be without driver at the rapture" or similar things.

Can Matt. 24:41 be interpreted this way correctly? Absolutely not. Why not? Like so many scriptures, the context makes it's meaning clear.

"But of that day [the second coming of Jesus] and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only. But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be. Then shall two be in the field; the one shall be taken, and the other left. Two women shall be grinding at the mill; the one shall be taken, and the other left" (Matt 24:36-41).

The comparison is clear: in the days of Noah the flood "took [the wicked] all away" and at the second coming of Jesus, the wicked "shall be taken." In an ironic twist, it is the righteous that remain and are not taken. In other words, the reference to being taken refers to the fact that the Lord will destroy the wicked when He comes to rule and reign on earth.

Second Coming and Resurrection

Latter-day Saints believe that Christ will literally return to earth with the same body that he took up from the tomb in Jerusalem. His second coming is soon at hand, but how soon no one knows. At the time of his return, they "who are Christ's" will be resurrected and will come with him to reign on earth. The saints who are yet alive will also be caught up to meet him and come with him at his coming. At this time the earth will be burned, the wicked destroyed, and the world purified.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Jerusalem will be redeemed and the temple restored before Christ's coming under the direction of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in conjunction with the converted of Judah. New Jerusalem will also be built with it's temple in Jackson County, Missouri. These things will happen before Christ comes. LDS interpret Isaiah 2:2 as having reference to the redemption of Jerusalem and the building of New Jerusalem ("Zion") and a day when the ecclesiastical authority will be based in Jerusalem while the political center will be based in the USA.

I realize this isn't very thorough. Your comments, questions, and so forth are more than welcome.

I'd refer you to these important LDS writings on the topic for more information:

Doctrine and Covenants 29

Doctrine and Covenants 45

Doctrine and Covenants 77

Doctrine and Covenants 133

Preperation for the Second Coming

Dallin H. Oaks: The Second Coming of Christ

The Gathering of Scattered Israel

Joseph Smith on The Second Coming and the Millennium

Brigham Young on The Last Days, Millennium, etc

Joseph F. Smith: Preparing for the Second Coming of Christ

Wilford Woodruff: Preparing for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ

Email Debate with Fundamentalist Pastor

2008-02-04T21:03:00.001-07:00

In March 2007, a local pastor in the small town in Virginia where we were living, was involved in a mass distribution of an anti-Mormon DVD entitled "Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith." It was nothing less than a load of lies, mischaracterizations and rubbish. There was a wonderful response put out immediately by some LDS apologists that you can see at www.JosephSmithDVD.org. The distribution of the DVD was 100% anonymous and distributed to LDS and their neighbors and friends while the LDS members were in Church. The DVD was simply placed in the mailbox, on the door step, on car windshields, or some other location. Unfortunately, I didn't get one. So, I took the opportunity of calling each pastor in town to try to locate who was responsible and to get a copy for myself to review.

I eventually was successful. Pastor Ramsey was mostly courteous and polite and even gave me an audience in his office after I saw the video. I expressed my concern that he, as a good Christian, would never wish to intentionally bare false witness against his neighbor and left him with a printed-out copy of the material found on www.JosephSmithDVD.org. We discussed some of the issues involved, we exchanged information and I left.

I thought that this Pastor surely was an honest albeit misinformed man. I was surprised to find out a few weeks later that he was publicly showing the video in his church and that he announced it in the local newspapers. At this point a friend and I decided it was best to respond. We typed up a short response to the attack with information on where to get answers to the lies in the video, took it to his church and placed it on each car while the people were inside watching the video. We figured that was the least confrontational way we could respond. In the short response we questioned the integrity of the pastor by pointing out that he had the information found on www.josephsmithdvd.org and yet continues to show the video which misrepresents LDS belief and history.

That night I received an email from Pastor Ramsey in response. It was amazingly calm and careful. Admittedly, I was surprised by the way he presented himself. This email blossomed into a long debate over the next week or two which I have saved. It is here attached as a word document for you to download. I admittedly would respond differently to some of his questions today if given the opportunity. I think I would have tried to tone down my sarcasm a bit as well, but sometimes I can't help myself. Either way, I think you'll find the document insightful.

Click here to download:Pastor Ramsey and Andrew Miller Email Debate

Unscriptural Calvinism

2008-02-03T15:43:00.000-07:00

I've made a scriptural list before on Biblical References to Deification. I made one today on Calvinism. I think this scriptural list shows the inconsistency of the Calvinist doctrines of total depravity, unlimited election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. LDS reject all of these concepts.

T-U-L-I-P

Total Depravity (Original Sin)
Sin inherited from parents: Deut. 1:34-39; Ezek. 18:19-20; Isa 7:15-16; Jer 19:2-6; Matt. 18:1-3; 19:13-14
Non-saved incapable choosing or doing good: Deut.11:26-28; 30:15-20; Josh. 24:15; Acts 10:1-4, 22 (cf 11:14); Rom. 2:14-16

Unconditional Election (Predestination of Individuals)
Acts 10:34; Rom 2:11-12; 1 Pet. 1:17; Tit 2:11; 1 Ti 2:3-4; 2 Peter 3:9

Limited Atonement (Jesus died only for the elect)
Luke 19:10; John 1:29; 3:16; Romans 1:16; 2 Corinthians 5:14-15; 1 Timothy 2:6; Hebrews 2:9; 1 John 2:1-2

Irresistible Grace (No choice in one's salvation)
Matt. 11:28; Acts 6:10; 7:51-55; Revelation 22:17; John 12:32 (cf. John 6:44 & 2 Nephi. 26:24-28, 33)

Perseverance of the Saints (Once saved always saved)
Ezek 3:20; 18:24-26; Matt. 7:21-23; Luke 8:13; 9:62; 12:41-48; John 15:1-7; 1 Cor. 8:11; Gal. 5:1-4, 13; Col. 1:21-23; 1 Ti 1:18-20; 4:1; 5:8; Heb. 3:12; 4:1-2,11; 6:4-8; 10:26-31; 10:38-39; James 5:19-20; 1 Pet. 5:8-10; 2 Pet. 2:1,15,20-22; 3:17; Rev 2:4-5; 3:5,16-17

I invite you to take a look at these scriptures if you're interested in the topic. It shouldn't take more than about 45 minutes.

Gift of the Holy Ghost by the Laying on of Hands

2008-02-02T21:52:00.000-07:00

Latter-day Saints "believe that the first principles and ordinances of the gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost." We also "believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the gospel and administer in the ordinances thereof" (Articles of Faith 4 & 5).

In other words, after a person believes in Jesus Christ, repents, and is baptized by immersion, the gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority to do so.

I have known some good Christian people that have believed that the gift of the Holy Ghost is bestowed on an individual at the moment he believes without reference to baptism or the laying on of hands. I will here argue that such an idea is inconsistent with the Biblical record while the LDS view is more consistent.

First, on the day of Pentecost, Peter preached a powerful sermon that was well received. The Holy Ghost bore record to his audience that Jesus was indeed "both Lord and Christ." After he had preached, the people "were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?" (Acts 2:37). Clearly, they began to exercise faith in Jesus Christ by believing Peter's message. They wanted to know what they should do. If the doctrine of being saved by saying the sinner's prayer were indeed true, this would have been the perfect time for Peter to say something like "Pray to Jesus and ask him to forgive you and you will be saved," but what did he say?

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost" (Acts 2:38).

These people who had 1) Faith in Jesus Christ were told to 2) Repent 3) be baptized for the remission of sins and that 4) they would then receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. This is clearly incompatible with the idea that you receive the Holy Ghost after simply believing or saying the "sinner's prayer." If ever Peter had the opportunity to teach such a doctrine, here it was. He didn't teach such a doctrine, however, but he taught one that is entirely consistent with the LDS article of faith mentioned above.

One could attempt to argue that this was the prescribed method for being saved and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost for this particular group of people but that ti isn't required of all people at all times. However, Peter makes certain that this isn't the case by what he said next:

"For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call" (Acts 2:39).

He then exhorted them to "save [themselves] from this untoward generation. Then they that gladly received his word were baptized..." (Acts 2:40-41). Once again, baptism was the door to salvation. In order to "save themselves" they must not stop with faith alone or with repentance, but also be baptized. (I digress)

Another fascinating insight comes from Acts 8.

"But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done.
14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John:
15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost:
16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.)
17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.
18 And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money,
19 Saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost.
20 But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money."

This is significant for several reasons. First, these people in Samaria already believed on Jesus' name and were baptized, yet they hadn't received the Holy Ghost. Only did they receive this gift after Peter and John came and laid hands on them to give them the gift. Simon saw that this gift was given this way and offered to buy the gift from the apostles.

If the gift of the Holy Ghost comes just through belief in Jesus, why didn't these Samaritans receive that gift the moment they believed? Also, why didn't Philip give them the gift? He apparently baptized them, but didn't lay hands on them. Why?

According to LDS doctrine, a person who hold Aaronic priesthood can baptize but cannot confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. However, apostles or elders can confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. This story makes perfect sense from an LDS doctrinal standpoint: Philip had authority to baptize but he didn't have authority to confer the gift of the Holy Ghost. The apostles then came and conferred this gift on the recently baptized believers.

There are many other such examples, but suffice it to say these scriptures seem to imply that a person must:

1) have faith in Jesus
2) repent
3) be baptized for the remission of sins
4) receive the Holy Ghost by the laying on of hands by those who have authority

Also,

5) some have authority to baptize but do not have authority to bestow the gift of the Holy Ghost.

LDS belief is entirely consistent with these scriptures. Is the rest of modern Christianity?

For further clarification, LDS believe individuals may receive manifestations of the Holy Ghost prior to baptism to strengthen faith in Christ and to bring people to repentance and baptism. There are several instances of people receiving such manifestations of the Holy Ghost in scripture and outside of scripture. If a person rejects such manifestations, however, the Holy Ghost will not abide with him. On the other hand, if a person follows such manifestations he will eventually find himself with faith, having been baptized, and having the gift of the Holy Ghost sealed upon his head.

Elijah, Elias, Isaiah, Esaias

2008-02-02T13:55:00.000-07:00

It has been noted that in LDS scripture there is sometimes made a distinction between Isaiah and Esaias as well as Elijah and Elias. "Elias" is consistently used as a title for someone who prepares the way for the coming of the Lord. Thus in the Bible John is referred to as "Elias." (See http://en.fairmormon.org/Elias_and_Elijah_at_the_Kirtland_Temple for more information on the use of Elias in the Church)

As far as Isaiah goes, the Hebrew name Yesha'yah[u] (transliterated as Isaiah) appears in the Bible on many occasions, but is used to denote different individuals other than the prophet who authored the Book of Isaiah. These names are rendered Esaias in the Greek Septuagint, and are rendered Isaiah, Jesiah and Jesaiah in the KJV and many other translations of the Old Testament. In the passages in LDS scripture (apart from the Bible) that refer to Esaiah, it is possible that Joseph Smith was using a different transliteration of the Semitic name to differentiate one Isaiah from another. Indeed, we have many New Testament parallels in translation literature, such as the Jude/Judas variant in the New Testament where the translators chose to use "Jude" in an attempt to distinguish from "Judas" who betrayed Jesus.

In the nineteenth century, "Elias" was used rather generically to denote a forerunner. Alexander Campbell, in Delusions used it in the same fashion as did Joseph Smith:

The Jews gave up their business and attended to him. He obtained one Nathan in Jerusalem to pass for his Elias, or forerunner. (www.lds-mormon.com/campbell.shtml)

In many places, the Lord says that the revelations received by Joseph Smith were put into his own language according to his own understanding.(See D&C 67:5). It is likely, therefore, that he would have used "Elias" as a name-title for forerunners.

The Elias in D&C 27 seems to be Noah, who Joseph Smith identified with the angel Gabriel, and could well be the same as the one in D&C 110 (in section 27, Elias [clearly Gabriel/Noah from the context] was promised to bestow keys of authority. This may have been fulfilled as recorded in D&C 110).

I hope this adds some helpful information to this somewhat difficult question.

"The Word of Widsom"

2008-01-30T21:53:00.000-07:00

I give here a brief outline of the Word of Wisdom for those who would like to understand better this unique Mormon practice.

Where did it come from?

"When [the school of prophets] assembled together in this room after breakfast, the first they did was to light their pipes, and, while smoking, talk about the great things of the kingdom, and spit all over the room, and as soon as the pipe was out of their mouths a large chew of tobacco would then be taken. Often when the Prophet [Joseph Smith] entered the room to give the school instructions he would find himself in a cloud of tobacco smoke. This, and the complaints of his wife at having to clean so filthy a floor, made the Prophet think upon the matter, and he inquired of the Lord relating to the conduct of the Elders in using tobacco, and the revelation known as the Word of Wisdom was the result of his inquiry" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, vol. 12, 158)

Like many revelations given in the Latter-days, this revelation came in response to a particular situation. Joseph Smith inquired of the Lord to know what to do and received what is recorded in D&C 89.

Why the Word of Wisdom?

Besides the obvious health concerns that it address, the Word of Wisdom was also given for another significant reason. "Behold, verily, thus saith the Lord unto you: In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days, I have warned you, and forewarn you, by giving unto you this word of wisdom by revelation—" (D&C 89:4). The Lord warns that there will be "evils and designs...in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days" and that is why he revealed this health code. It doesn't take much imagination to see such conspiring men in the tobacco and alcohol industries, does it? Here are groups of men getting rich of the lives, happiness, freedom, health, and families of those who consume and often are addicted to their products. The very definition, according to the Book of Mormon, of secret combinations are those who murder to get power and gain.

What about the health issues? It wasn't until over a century after the Word of Wisdom was revealed that science and society as a whole began to recognize the dangers of tobacco in particular. Medicine has also shown the benefits of avoiding alcohol, eating grains, and avoiding large quantities of meat. If this revelation were simply a product of Joseph Smith's time and environment, why has it been verified to a large extent by science only much later?

Hot Drinks

Early in the Church's history, Hyrum Smith announced that "hot drinks" meant "tea and coffee." Joseph Smith validated this interpretation. Some members of the church have interpreted that further to mean that caffeine should be avoided. However, the Church officially interprets it thus: "The only official interpretation of 'hot drinks' (D&C 89:9) in the Word of Wisdom is the statement made by early Church leaders that the term 'hot drinks' means tea and coffee" (LDS Church (2006). Church Handbook of Instructions, Book 1: Stake Presidencies and Bishoprics [Salt Lake City: LDS Church], 185). Tea has been defined as the drink that contains the actual tea plant, and not to include herbal teas.

Evolution of the Word of Wisdom

The Word of Wisdom was first understood as a guideline for members of the Church "not by commandment or constraint" (D&C 89:2) It wasn't until the early 1900's that the Word of Wisdom was reinterpreted or expanded by church leaders (particularly Pres. Heber J. Grant) to be no longer simply a guideline but a commandment from God. Since then, LDS members have been expected to live the Word of Wisdom in order to participate in temple ordinances and to advance in priesthood (for the males).

EDIT: Something else I forgot to mention. The revelation came, as I mentioned due to conspiring men that the Lord foresaw would exist in the last days. This leads me to believe that the principles of the Word of Wisdom are adapted for our time and place and we shouldn't expect to find them in the New Testament and perhaps some of the principles will change in a millennial day. The Word of Wisdom, in my mind, doesn't fall in the category of "never ending truth" but into the category of "this is best for you at this time."

Death Swallowed Up

2008-01-29T11:11:00.001-07:00

There is a fascinating Hebrew idiom associated with death, the pit and the grave. The concept is that the grave or death swallows up it's victims.

"Let us swallow them up alive as the grave; and whole, as those that go down into the pit:" (Proverbs 1:12).

"But if the LORD make a new thing, and the earth open her mouth, and swallow them up, with all that appertain unto them, and they go down quick into the pit..." (Num. 16:30).

Isaiah uses this idiom in reverse to speak of the reversal of death. Death becomes the thing that is "swallowed up." Later, in 1 Cor. 15:54, Paul quotes Isaiah.

"He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the LORD hath spoken it" (Isaiah 25:8).

This is the only occurrence of a reversal of this them in the Bible. I find it interesting that it occurs several times in the Book of Mormon.

"But there is a resurrection, therefore the grave hath no victory, and the sting of death is swallowed up in Christ" (Mosiah 16:8).

"And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king" (Alma 22:14).

"And they did look upon shedding the blood of their brethren with the greatest abhorrence; and they never could be prevailed upon to take up arms against their brethren; and they never did look upon death with any degree of terror, for their hope and views of Christ and the resurrection; therefore, death was swallowed up to them by the victory of Christ over it" (Alma 27:28).

"Know ye that ye must come to the knowledge of your fathers, and repent of all your sins and iniquities, and believe in Jesus Christ, that he is the Son of God, and that he was slain by the Jews, and by the power of the Father he hath risen again, whereby he hath gained the victory over the grave; and also in him is the sting of death swallowed up" (Mormon 7:5).

This is beautiful imagery that would be most useful and beautiful to a Hebrew speaking person who understood the concept of "death swallowing up" people. In Christ, death itself is swallowed up! I appreciate this imagery first found in the Bible, and think the Book of Mormon does a wonderful job at expounding and building on that imagery.

Also, of note is this scripture:

"Yea, even so he shall be led, crucified, and slain, the flesh becoming subject even unto death, the will of the Son being swallowed up in the will of the Father" (Mosiah 15:7).

With this understanding of the terminology, I think Abinadi is here saying that Christ's will (to "let pass this cup" of suffering and death), was swallowed up in the Father's will that he suffer and die. In other words, Christ killed his own will in preference to the Father's will.

In Memoriam

2008-01-27T21:01:00.000-07:00

President Gordon B. Hinckley passed away this evening around 7:00 PM MST. He will be truly missed. It will undoubtedly take a day or two for the shock of this incident to pass.

Beloved Church President Gordon B. Hinckley dies at 97

The Merits of Jesus Christ

2008-01-27T08:42:00.000-07:00

In my last post, I commented on the justice and mercy of God and that it is only through the mercy of God that we can be saved. In conjunction with that theme, the Book of Mormon also teaches that it is by Christ's merits alone, and not our own, that we are saved.

"Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise" (2 Nephi 2:8).

"And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save" (2 Nephi 31:19).

"And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king" (Alma 22:14).

"And I also thank my God, yea, my great God, that he hath granted unto us that we might repent of these things, and also that he hath forgiven us of those our many sins and murders which we have committed, and taken away the guilt from our hearts, through the merits of his Son" (Alma 24:10).

"And if ye believe on his name ye will repent of all your sins, that thereby ye may have a remission of them through his merits" (Helaman 14:13).

"And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith" (Moroni 6:4).

These scriptures teach us that it is the merits of Christ that save us, not or own. Fallen man cannot "merit anything of himself." Even after baptism we are to rely "alone upon the merits of Christ" and not our own merits for our salvation. Truly, it is Christ and his merits that save.

Flaming Sword and the Justice of God

2008-01-25T23:05:00.002-07:00

The Flaming Sword and the Justice of God

After Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden, God "drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life" (Genesis 3:24). What could this "flaming sword" represent? The Book of Mormon has the key.

Lehi saw a vision of the tree of life (See 1 Nephi 8). He related this vision to his family. Nephi was moved by the dream and "was desirous also that [he] might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (1 Nephi 10:17).

"For it came to pass after I had desired to know the things that my father had seen, and believing that the Lord was able to make them known unto me, as I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away in the Spirit of the Lord, yea, into an exceedingly high mountain, which I never had before seen, and upon which I never had before set my foot. And the Spirit said unto me: Behold, what desirest thou? And I said: I desire to behold the things which my father saw" (1 Nephi 11:1-3).

Nephi then sees, among many other things, the tree of life and its interpretation. He sees a great gulf that separates the wicked from the righteous (Compare Luke 16:26). He also sees a large and spacious building filled with wicked people. He is then told, "And the large and spacious building, which thy father saw, is vain imaginations and the pride of the children of men. And a great and a terrible gulf divideth them; yea, even the sword* of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God, of whom the Holy Ghost beareth record, from the beginning of the world until this time, and from this time henceforth and forever" (1 Nephi 12:18. *word is corrected to read sword in accordance with the original manuscript).

This gulf that separates the wicked and the righteous is here referred to as "the sword of the justice of the Eternal God, and the Messiah who is the Lamb of God." This sword could very well be the same sword spoken of in Genesis 3:24. The sword is “the sword of the justice of the Eternal God” and therefore represents God's justice. Adam and Eve, being symbols for all mankind, transgressed the law of God and were therefore prohibited by justice from returning to God's presence and partaking of the tree of life.

Further this sword of justice is equated directly to “a terrible gulf” (see 1 Nephi 12:18). Interestingly, Nephi later equates the gulf God's justice again and uses more imagery from Genesis 3:24—the imagery of flaming fire. "And I said unto them that it was an awful gulf, which separated the wicked from the tree of life, and also from the saints of God....And I said unto them that our father also saw that the justice of God did also divide the wicked from the righteous; and the brightness thereof was like unto the brightness of a flaming fire, which ascendeth up unto God forever and ever, and hath no end" (1 Nephi 15:28, 30).

Now that man has been cast out of God's presence and justice separates man from God's presence, what is to be done? How can we cross this "gulf" that separates us from God and the tree of life? The Book of Mormon answers that question authoritatively.

Lehi said to his wicked sons: "O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are carried away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe" (2 Nephi 1:13).

The once wicked but now saved Ammon exclaimed: "Behold, we went forth even in wrath, with mighty threatenings to destroy his church. Oh then, why did he not consign us to an awful destruction, yea, why did he not let the sword of his justice fall upon us, and doom us to eternal despair? Oh, my soul, almost as it were, fleeth at the thought. Behold, he did not exercise his justice upon us, but in his great mercy hath brought us over that everlasting gulf of death and misery, even to the salvation of our souls" (Alma 26:18-20).

"Thus we may see that the Lord is merciful unto all who will, in the sincerity of their hearts, call upon his holy name. Yea, thus we see that the gate of heaven is open unto all, even to those who will believe on the name of Jesus Christ, who is the Son of God. Yea, we see that whosoever will may lay hold upon the word of God, which is quick and powerful, which shall divide asunder all the cunning and the snares and the wiles of the devil, and lead the man of Christ in a strait and narrow course across that everlasting gulf of misery which is prepared to engulf the wicked— And land their souls, yea, their immortal souls, at the right hand of God in the kingdom of heaven, to sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and with Jacob, and with all our holy fathers, to go no more out" (Helaman 3:27-30).

"And now, my sons, remember, remember that it is upon the rock of our Redeemer, who is Christ, the Son of God, that ye must build your foundation; that when the devil shall send forth his mighty winds, yea, his shafts in the whirlwind, yea, when all his hail and his mighty storm shall beat upon you, it shall have no power over you to drag you down to the gulf of misery and endless wo, because of the rock upon which ye are built, which is a sure foundation, a foundation whereon if men build they cannot fall" (Helaman 5:12).

As we can see in each of these verses, mercy is juxtaposed to justice. It is by the mercy of Jesus Christ that those who believe on his name and build on his foundation can cross that "everlasting gulf of misery" and be spared from "the sword of the justice of God." It is only after we "wake up" and realize the seriousness of the justice of God that we can be freed from the oppressive powers of Satan and hell.

Further Book of Mormon scriptures on the topic:

"And he said unto them: Behold, I, Samuel, a Lamanite, do speak the words of the Lord which he doth put into my heart; and behold he hath put it into my heart to say unto this people that the sword of justice hangeth over this people; and four hundred years pass not away save the sword of justice falleth upon this people" (Helaman 13:5).

"Behold, I would tell you somewhat concerning the justice of God, and the sword of his almighty wrath, which doth hang over you except ye repent and withdraw your armies into your own lands, or the land of your possessions, which is the land of Nephi" (Alma 54:6).

"And it shall come to pass, saith the Father, that the sword of my justice shall hang over them at that day; and except they repent it shall fall upon them, saith the Father, yea, even upon all the nations of the Gentiles" (3 Nephi 20:20).

"And when ye shall see these sayings coming forth among you, then ye need not any longer spurn at the doings of the Lord, for the sword of his justice is in his right hand; and behold, at that day, if ye shall spurn at his doings he will cause that it shall soon overtake you" (3 Nephi 29:4).

"Behold, the sword of vengeance hangeth over you; and the time soon cometh that he avengeth the blood of the saints upon you, for he will not suffer their cries any longer" (Mormon 8:41).

"Wherefore, O ye Gentiles, it is wisdom in God that these things should be shown unto you, that thereby ye may repent of your sins, and suffer not that these murderous combinations shall get above you, which are built up to get power and gain—and the work, yea, even the work of destruction come upon you, yea, even the sword of the justice of the Eternal God shall fall upon you, to your overthrow and destruction if ye shall suffer these things to be" (Ether 8:23).

The Testimony of the Three Witnesses to the Book of Mormon

2008-01-24T22:22:00.000-07:00

Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.

Oliver Cowdery
David Whitmer
Martin Harris

This testimony was never denied by any of the three witness, even though all three were at one point excommunicated from the Church. Each were embittered toward Joseph Smith personally. If they had made up such a testimony, surely that would have been the best time to do so. Each testified of the truthfulness of their testimony on their death beds. Surely, if there were any time to deny it, they would have denied it then. This fact is something that the critics of the Church have to ignore or distort. They have no other choice.

Here are some interesting quotes and stories from each of these men.

Oliver Cowdery

I wrote, with my own pen, the entire Book of Mormon (save a few pages) as it fell from the lips of the Prophet Joseph, as he translated it by the gift and power of God, by the means of the Urim and Thummim, or as it is called by the book, Holy Interpreters. I beheld with my eyes, and handled with my hands, the gold plates from which it was transcribed. I also saw with my eyes and handled with my hands the Holy Interpreters. That book is true. Sidney Rigdon did not write it. Mr. Spaulding did not write it. I wrote it myself as it fell from the lips of the prophet.It contains the everlasting gospel, and came forth to the children of men in fulfillment of the revelations of John, where he says he saw an angel come with the everlasting gospel to preach to every nation, kindred, tongue and people. It contains principles of salvation; and if you, my hearers, will walk by its light and obey its precepts, you will be saved with an everlasting salvation in the kingdom of God on high. (Oliver Cowdery, cited in Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia [Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901], 1:246.)

Oliver Cowdery just before breathing his last, asked his attendants to raise him up in bed that he might talk to the family and his friends, who were present. He then told them to live according to the teachings contained in the Book of Mormon, and promised them, if they would do this, that they would meet him in heaven. He then said, ‘Lay me down and let me fall asleep.’ A few moments later he died without a struggle. (Lucy P. Young who witnessed this event. Cited in Andrew Jenson, LDS Biographical Encyclopedia [Salt Lake City: Andrew Jenson History Company, 1901], 1:246.)

Martin Harris

On one occasion several of his old acquaintances made an effort to get him tipsy by treating him to some wine. When they thought he was in a good mood for talk they put the question very carefully to him, ‘Well, now, Martin, we want you to be frank and candid with us in regard to this story of your seeing an angel and the golden plates of the Book of Mormon that are so much talked about. We have always taken you to be an honest good farmer and neighbor of ours but could not believe that you did see an angel. Now, Martin, do you really believe that you did see an angel, when you were awake?’ ‘No,’ said Martin, ‘I do not believe it.’ The crowd were delighted, but soon a different feeling prevailed, as Martin true to his trust, said, ‘Gentlemen, what I have said is true, from the fact that my belief is swallowed up in knowledge; for I want to say to you that as the Lord lives I do know that I stood with the Prophet Joseph Smith in the presence of the angel, and it was the brightness of day.” (Letter of Elder Edward Stevenson to the Millennial Star quoted in William Edwin Berrett, The Restored Church [Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1974], 57–58.)

No man ever heard me in any way deny the truth of the Book of Mormon, the administration of the angel that showed me the plates; nor the organization of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, under the administration of Joseph Smith, Jun., the prophet whom the Lord raised up for that purpose in these latter days, that He may show forth His power and glory. The Lord has shown me these things by His Spirit, by the administration of holy angels, and confirmed the same with signs following, step by step by step, as the work has progressed, for the space of fifty-three years. (Martin Harris, letter to Hanna B. Emerson, Jan., 1871)

The Book of Mormon is no fake. I know what I know. I have seen what I have seen and I have heard what I have heard. I have seen the gold plates from which the Book of Mormon is written. An angel appeared to me and others and testified to the truthfulness of the record, and had I been willing to have perjured myself and sworn falsely to the testimony I now bear I could have been a rich man, but I could not have testified other than I have done and am now doing for these things are true. (Martin Harris on his death bed. Cited by George Godfrey, “Testimony of Martin Harris,” from an unpublished manuscript copy in the possession of his descendants, quoted in Eldin Ricks, The Case of the Book of Mormon Witnesses [Salt Lake City: Deseret News Press, 1971], 65–66.)

David Whitmer

It is recorded in the American Cyclopedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica, that I, David Whitmer, have denied my testimony as one of the Three Witnesses to the divinity of the Book of Mormon: and that the two other witnesses, Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris, denied their testimony to that book. I will say once more to all mankind, that I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof. I also testify to the world, that neither Oliver Cowdery nor Martin Harris ever at any time denied their testimony. They both died affirming the truth of the divine authenticity of the Book of Mormon. (David Whitmer, An Address to All Believers in Christ by a Witness to the Divine Authenticity of The Book of Mormon [David Whitmer: Richmond, Virginia, 1887], 8.)

Unto all Nations, Kindreds, Tongues and People, unto whom these presents shall come:

It having been represented by one John Murphy, of Polo, Caldwell County, Mo., that I, in a conversation with him last summer, denied my testimony as one of the three witnesses to the "Book of Mormon."

To the end, therefore, that he may understand me now, if he did not then; and that the world may know the truth, I wish now, standing as it were in the very sunset of life, and in the fear of God, once for all to make this public statement:

That I have never at any time denied that testimony or any part thereof, which has so long since been published with that Book, as one of the three witnesses. Those who know me best, well know that I have always adhered to that testimony. And that no man may be misled or doubt my present views in regard to the same, I do again affirm the truth of all my statements as then made and published.

"He that hath an ear to hear, let him hear;" it was no delusion! What is written is written, and he that readeth let him understand...

My sincere desire is that the world may be benefited by this plain and simple statement of truth.

And all honor be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen!
(David Whitmer, Richmond, Mo., March 19th, 1881).

Following his death the Richmond Conservator wrote:

On Sunday evening before his death he called the family and his attending physician, Dr. George W. Buchanan, to his bedside and said, “Doctor do you consider that I am in my right mind?” to which the Doctor replied, “Yes, you are in your right mind, I have just had a conversation with you.” He then addressed himself to all present and said: “I want to give my dying testimony. You must be faithful in Christ. I want to say to you all that the Bible and the record of the Nephites, (The Book of Mormon) are true, so you can say that you have heard me bear my testimony on my death bed....

On Monday morning he again called those present to his bedside, and told them that he had seen another vision which reconfirmed the divinity of the “Book of Mormon,” and said that he had seen Christ in the fullness of his glory and majesty, sitting upon his great white throne in heaven waiting to receive his children.(Richmond Conservator Report [26 January 1888])

The Richmond Democrat also added this comment:

Skeptics may laugh and scoff if they will, but no man can listen to Mr. Whitmer as he talks of his interview with the Angel of the Lord, without being most forcibly convinced that he has heard an honest man tell what he honestly believes to be true. (Richmond Democrat 16/6 [2 February 1888])

Agency & Atonement

2008-01-23T09:00:00.000-07:00

I'm currently reading Claiming Christ by Robert Millet and Gerald McDermott. Millet is LDS and McDermott is an evangelical Lutheran.

In chapter 7 a discussion comes up on agency's role in salvation. McDermott believes that if a person had a choice to come unto Christ, man would be a co-participator in his salvation and that such an arrangement would do damage to grace. Further, man, being totally depraved, could not choose to accept Christ. It is beyond his capacity to do so. Lastly, because of the Fall of man, it is theoretically and practically impossible for man to live without sin. God elects who will be saved and makes the first move in salvation. Therefore, salvation is by grace alone.

Millet, on the other hand, insists that man is free to choose to accept the atonement of Jesus on man's behalf or to reject it. He is capable theoretically, if not practically, to live without sin. However, no man does so. Man is has received a fallen nature that is prone toward sin, but man has the power to resist sin and to choose to follow God. Since no man, excepting Jesus, has kept all of God's commandments and followed God perfectly, all need redemption through Jesus. Therefore, salvation is by grace alone.

I was in a ponderous mood when I read this. Let me share some of my thoughts with you.

What is a greater manifestation of grace--A) God saves man who couldn't have ever been perfect anyway or, (McDermott's evangelical view) B) God saves man who could have been perfect, but chose not to? (Millet's LDS view)? I think the second is the greater manifestation of grace and mercy.

If fallen man could not ever choose of his own free-will and choice to follow God (McDermott's evangelical view), then how can God condemn man when he doesn't follow Him? Would this destroy God's justice?

Since Jesus was fully man (evangelical and LDS views) and he lived a perfect life without sin (evangelical and LDS views), what would prohibit a man (theoretically) to live a perfect life without sin?

I have more questions and ideas, but I think that's a good place to stop for now. I think the evangelical view as represented by McDermott does damage to God's perfect justice and mercy. On the other hand, I believe the LDS view restores these two attributes to God in their perfection.

Let me say that while I believe men could, in theory, live a perfect life, I do not think that any man has ever done so (in practicality) except Jesus. In my mind, this is what is so marvelous about the gospel of Jesus Christ. Even though we have all fallen short of the glory of God, have sinned, and deserve an infinite hell, if we stop serving our will and decide to serve God's will, He will forgive us because of the merits, mercy, and grace of his Son.

Since God is just, he cannot condemn a man for something he did not choose to do of his own free will. If man were totally depraved and incapable of following God, God could not condemn us because we sin.

Truly God's justice and mercy are brought into perfect harmony in Jesus Christ!

How great, how glorious, how complete,
Redemption's grand design,
Where justice, love, and mercy meet
In harmony divine!

Eliza R. Snow (LDS),
(Hymns of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 195).

What do you think?

Men and God: The Same Species

2008-01-21T15:24:00.000-07:00

Paul tells us in Acts 17:22-29 basic nature of God and our relationship to him. Please read carefully.

" Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring. 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. "

Now, may I ask, Paul, why shouldn't we think of God as gold, silver, or stone, etc? What is the logic in your statement?

I think Paul would say "We are God's offspring. We are, therefore, what he is. He is what we are. Therefore, we shouldn't think of him as anything else like gold, silver, or something created by man." That's what this scripture seems to say to me in very plain terms.

Now, if we're the offspring of God, he cannot be anything but what we are! His logic is as clear as can be. To interpret any other way is to destroy the meaning of his logic.

Further, God is not "unknown" or unknowable like the Athens thought. Many today also teach that he is unknowable, or inconceivable by nature. Does this imply that the mainstream Christian idea of God as being inconceivable or unknowable is derived from the Greek world of thought?

Lastly, Paul argues that we are God's offspring (Greek: genos!) and therefore we ought not think he is like silver, or gold. What should we think of him as then? The implication is perfectly clear. If we are his genos (Latin genus, English, "species") then we ought to think that he is basically like us in his nature. We are of the same species.

The Geneva Bible translates it "generation." Generation is a word derived from "genus." Genus has to do with origin usually in the sense of a child has his origin in his parent.

For fun, here are some other languages:

genus ergo cum simus Dei non debemus aestimare auro aut argento aut lapidi sculpturae artis et cogitationis hominis divinum esse simile (Latin)

Siendo pues linaje de Dios, no hemos de estimar la Divinidad ser semejante a oro, o a plata, o a piedra, escultura de artificio o de imaginación de hombres. (Reina Valera, Spanish)

Sendo nós, pois, geração de Deus, não devemos pensar que a divindade seja semelhante ao ouro, ou à prata, ou à pedra esculpida pela arte e imaginação do homem. (PJFA)

Essendo dunque progenie di Dio, non dobbiam credere che la Divinità sia simile ad oro, ad argento, o a pietra scolpiti dall'arte e dall'immaginazione umana. (Italian, IRL)

γενος ουν υπαρχοντες του θεου ουκ οφειλομεν νομιζειν χρυσω η αργυρω η λιθω χαραγματι τεχνης και ενθυμησεως ανθρωπου το θειον ειναι ομοιον (Greek)

Since this appears to be the plain and obvious meaning of the verse, could we say that Paul believed that men are gods by nature? Do you accept Paul's teaching, or do you prefer the Greek understanding of God as being "unknown" and totally other?

I've always been impressed by this scripture and see it as one of the greatest Biblical evidences for the basic tenet of Mormonism, namely the nature of God and man.

Proof Texts on the Trinity Refuted

2008-01-19T21:32:00.000-07:00

Latter-day Saints have long been criticized for our rejection of the post-Biblical concepts of the Trinity. One such post-Biblical concept is the idea that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ontologically one Being who is three persons. In contrast, LDS believe that the the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three persons and three distinct beings. While mainstream/traditional Christians maintain that the three persons of the Trinity are in reality only one Being and one God, LDS Christians affirm that there are in fact three Beings who are one in glory, power, might, dominion, mind, will, knowledge, attributes, etc. In LDS thought the three persons of the Trinity are one in every conceivable way except their identity or being.

Over the years some of my non-LDS Christian friends have listed a few different New Testament passages in support of their concept of the Trinity. I will here quote them and then comment on why they do not reflect post-Biblical Trinitarian notions and show how they often are more congruous with the LDS concept of the Godhead.

John 10:30
"I and my Father are one."

This verse does not say that they are "same being." This text does not say how they are one at all. Fortunately for us, John later records Jesus' teaching on how He and his Father are one. "And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as (kathos) we are...Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as (kathos) 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. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as (kathos) we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me" (John 17:11, 20-23).

Jesus here makes clear that his disciples can be one even as (kathos) He and his Father are one. The Greek kathos means just as or how (See Strong's). In other words, Jesus prayed that they may be one just as He and his Father are one. If Jesus and his Father are one being manifest in two persons, for Jesus' prayer to be fulfilled his disciples must loose their identity and become absorbed into the Trinity! Assuming that a Billion or more will be saved (just for fun)--what will that make? A "Billinity"?

So how are Jesus and his Father one, according to Jesus? The key is in verse 22: "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that(hina) they may be one, even as we are one." The Greek word hina translated "that" literally means in order that (See Strong's). Jesus and his Father share the same glory and are thus one. Jesus prayed that his disciples may receive Their glory in order that they may be one with Them.

There is no other passage of scripture in the Bible that defines how Jesus and his Father are one. The later post-Biblical doctrine that define the Trinity as one being in three persons is not derived from the Bible but is added to it.

John 14:10-11
"Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake."

As seen above, Jesus prayed that his disciples "all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee," but one need not go to a different sermon of Jesus to find this. He refers to this very concept in the same sermon. In verse 20 he said, "At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you" (John 14:20). If Jesus meant for us to interpret "the Father [...] dwelleth in me" and "I am in the Father, and the Father in me" as "My Father and I are the same Being," did He also intend for us to interpret "I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you" that we, He, and His Father are all one ontological being? This, of course, is absurd.

To complicate the issue further, Jesus concludes his sermon by saying "my Father is greater than I" (John 14:28). Such talk is nonsense if He and His Father are the same being.

Colossians 2:9
"For in [Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily."

Some have interpreted this scripture as meaning that all of the Trinity somehow dwelt in the person of Jesus in an ontological union of being as defined in the post-Biblical creeds. We'll now investigate that.

First, one must understand that "Godhead" in 16th century English means "deity" or "godhood." The Greek word is theotes which means "divinity." This passage would better be rendered for our modern readers as "For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily" (ESV). The scripture, therefore, is not stating that all of the members of the Trinity dwelt in Christ, but that Christ was fully and completely divine.

Something else the critics overlook is the following verse. "And ye are complete in him, which is the head of all principality and power." The word translated as "complete" is the adjective form of the noun translated as "fullness" in the previous verse. For this reason, it is better translated "And you have a fullness in him..." This verse, understood this way, teaches that the fullness of divinity that was in Jesus can also be in us. This fullness was not reserved for Jesus only, but for all. Therefore, this scripture cannot be rightly interpreted to support the idea that God is three persons yet one being.

The doctrine of the saints receiving a fullness of God is reflected in another scripture authored by Paul. "For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, that he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; that Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, may be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; and to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God." (Ephesians 3:14-19).

1 John 5:7
"For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one."

This one is the most fascinating. Why? Because it is almost universally recognized as being an interpolation (addition) to scripture that wasn't actually written by the original author (See Metzger, Bruce. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 647-649).

Even if the text were authentic, which it probably is not, it does not define how the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are one. For such a definition one must turn to John 17 which clearly shows they are not ontologically one being, but one in glory.

Any other proof texts for the Trinity or comments are welcome. Thanks!

Temple Ordinances in Early Christianity

2008-01-18T11:30:00.001-07:00

In the New Testament the word "mystery" often implies a "secret rite" in the Greek (see Thayer's lexicon also here). In the Latin Vulgate, it is often translated as sacramentum from which the English word "sacrament" is derived. LDS people mean "sacrament" when we say "ordinance." The two words are really synonymous. In LDS terminology, referring to the Lord's Supper as "the Sacrament" isn't technically complete. It is "the sacrament of the Lord's supper" or "the ordinance of the Lord's supper." Baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordination, etc are all "sacraments" or "ordinances." To avoid the confusion of referring to the Lord's Super as "the sacrament," the Church translation of the scriptures into Spanish refer to la santa cena (the Holy Dinner) instead of to el sacramento (the sacrament).

In many older texts and often considered the more authentic reading, 1 Cor. 2:1 says that "I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the mystery of God." Later texts changed it to "Testimony." Mystery fits better in the context. Let me show you why.

For example, verse 6: "Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect (teleoi, that is, mature, or the initiated), yet not the wisdom of this world, not of the princes of the world, that come to naught. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory..."

Then in chapter 3 he repeats this theme, saying "I, brethren, [when I was among you] could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat (adult food): for hitherto ye were not able to bear it (that is, until now you couldn't bear it), neither yet now are ye able (and you still can't!)" (1 Cor. 3:1-2).

In the next chapter, Paul writes, "Let a man so account of us, as of the ministers of Christ, and the stewards of the mysteries of God" (1 Cor. 4:1).

So, It appears that Paul had in his mind two classes of Saints. The teleoi (or mature, the initiated, or "perfect") who had given to them hidden wisdom in a mystery (sacrament, ordinance, secret ritual) who could receive the adult food. The second class was those who hadn't received the hidden wisdom in a mystery because they were not yet ready. The people in Corinthians who had been members of the Church already for years fell into the second class, according to Paul's epistle to them. That's pretty fascinating.

I think this topic is also hinted at by the author of Hebrews (whom I believe to be Paul).

For when by reason of the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need again that some one teach you the rudiments of the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of solid food. For every one that partaketh of milk is without experience of the word of righteousness; for he is a babe. But solid food is for fullgrown men [teleoi], even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern good and evil (Revised Version. Hebrews 5:12-14).

Another fascinating reference to this is in Ephesians 5. In this context Paul speaks of marriage and the Church:

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
This is a great mystery (Ephesians 5:22-32).

Paul refers to marriage as a "great sacrament" and also speaks of the church as a bride without "wrinkle" or "spot" painting an image of special ceremonial wedding clothing.

Anyway, this continues after the New Testament. Here's the info I've gathered so far on the topic. Please read the quotes carefully before you start saying they refer to baptism or the Eucharist (some may, indeed, but not all for reasons that will be apparent to the careful reader). I think there is some real clear indicators that the "mysteries" were often other ordinances now long lost (except to the Latter-day Saints).

Ante-Nicene Fathers:

For a mystery ought to be most faithfully concealed and covered, especially by us, who bear the name of faith. (Lactantius Ante-Nicene Fathers 7:221)

And Peter said: “We remember that our Lord and Teacher, commanding us, said, ‘Keep the mysteries for me and the sons of my house.’ Wherefore also He explained to His disciples privately the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven. But to you who do battle with us, and examine into nothing else but out statements, whether they be true or false, it would be impious to state the hidden truths.” (Peter, Clementine Homilies, Ante-Nicene Fathers 8:336)

For the most sublime truths are best honoured by means of silence. (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8:83)

But if [Simon Magus] remains wrapped up and polluted in those sins which are manifestly such, it does not become me to speak to him at all of the more secret and sacred things of divine knowledge (gnosis), but rather to protest and confront him, that he cease from sin, and cleanse his actions from vice. But if he insinuate himself, and lead us on to speak what he, while he acts improperly, ought not to hear, it will be our part to parry him cautiously. For not to answer him at all does not seem proper, for the sake of the hearers, lest haply they may think that we decline the contest through want of ability to answer him, and so their faith may be injured through their misunderstanding of our purpose. (Peter, Clementine Recognitions, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 8:98)

But the same writer [Clement of Alexandria] in the seventh book of the same work, relates also the following things concerning him: “The Lord after his resurrection imparted knowledge (gnosis) to James the Just and to John and Peter, and they imparted it to the rest of the apostles, and the rest of the apostles to the seventy, of whom Barnabas was one...” (Eusebius. The Church History of Eusebius 2.1.4. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series Two. 1:104)

The science of nature, then, or rather observation, as contained in the gnostic tradition according to the rule of truth, depends on the discussion concerning cosmogony, ascending thence to the department of theology. (Clement of Alexandria. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:42)

Wherefore also all men are His; some through knowledge (gnosis), and others not yet so; and some as friends, some as faithful servants, some as servants merely. This is the Teacher, who trains the Gnostic by mysteries, and the believer by good hopes, and the hard of heart by corrective discipline through sensible operation. (Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2:524)

[T]he mysteries are not exhibited incontinently to all and sundry, but only after certain purifications and previous instructions. (Clement of Alexandria, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 2:449)

Now, in answer to such statements, we say that it is not the same thing to invite those who are sick in soul to be cured, and those who are in health to the knowledge and study of divine things. We, however, keeping both these things in view, at first invite all men to be healed, and exhort those who are sinners to come to the consideration of the doctrines which teach men not to sin…And when those who have been turned towards virtue have made progress, and have shown that they have been purified by the word, and have led as far as they can a better life, then and not before do we invite them to participation in our mysteries. “For we speak wisdom among them that are perfect.”…[W]hoever is pure not only from all defilement, but from what are regarded as lesser transgressions, let him be boldly initiated in the mysteries of Jesus, which properly are made known only to the holy and the pure…He who acts as initiator, according to the precepts of Jesus, will say to those who have been purified in heart, “He whose soul has, for a long time, been conscious of no evil, and especially since he yielded himself to the healing of the word, let such an one hear the doctrines which were spoken in private by Jesus to His genuine disciples.”… [Celsus] does not know the difference between inviting the wicked to be healed, and initiating those already purified into the sacred mysteries! Not to participation in mysteries, then, and to fellowship in the wisdom hidden in a mystery, which God ordained before the world to the glory of His saints, do we invite the wicked man, and the thief, and the housebreaker, and the poisoner, and the committer of sacrilege, and the plunderer of the dead, and all those others whom Celsus may enumerate in his exaggerated style, but such as these we invite to be healed…God the Word was sent, indeed, as a physician to sinners, but as a teacher of divine mysteries to those who are already pure and who sin no more. (Origen, Ante-Nicene Fathers. 4:487-489)

In these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a secret system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are (revealed) after the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are exoteric and others esoteric. (Origen. Ante-Nicene Fathers 4:399)

Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers:

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us “in a mystery” by the tradition of the Apostles... (Basil of Caesarea, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:40-41)

In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. “Dogma” and “Kerugma” are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. (Basil of Caesarea, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 8:42)

We ought not then to parade the holy mysteries before the uninitiated, lest the heathen in their ignorance deride them, and the Catechumens being over-curious be offended. (Athanasius, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2. 4:106)

But first I wish to remind you who are initiated of the response, which on that evening they who introduce you to the mysteries bid you make; and then I will also explain the saying of Paul: so this likewise will be clearer to you; we after all the other things adding this which Paul now saith [in 1 Corinthians 15:29]. And I desire indeed expressly to utter it, but I dare not on account of the uninitiated; for these add a difficulty to our exposition, compelling us either not to speak clearly or to declare unto them the ineffable mysteries. Nevertheless, as I may be able, I will speak as through a veil. (John Chrysostom. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One. 12:244)

What may all of this mean for mainstream Christians today who often teach that all an individual needs to know to be saved is that Jesus is his or her Savior? Where are the gnosis and musterion today?

A Star in the East? Another bullzeye for Joseph Smith.

2008-01-15T22:31:00.000-07:00

The King James Version (KJV) of the Bible reads "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem, Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him...When they had heard the king, they departed; and, lo, the star, which they saw in the east, went before them, till it came and stood over where the young child was" (Matthew 2:1-2,9). This star seems to appear in the east.

The Book of Mormon prophet Samuel predicted this sign would happen in the New World, but with different terminology. Later, Nephi reports that the sign came to pass.

"And behold, there shall a new star arise, such an one as ye never have beheld; and this also shall be a sign unto you" (Helaman 14:5).

"And it came to pass also that a new star did appear, according to the word" (3 Nephi 1:21).

These passages indicated that the star is to "arise" or "appear" but does not mention anything about it being in the east.

Perhaps you're wondering what my point is. Perhaps this will make it clear. According to the translators of the ESV, Matt 2:1-2,9 should be translated:

"Now after Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of Herod the king, behold, wise men from the east came to Jerusalem, saying, 'Where is he who has been born king of the Jews? For we saw his star when it rose and have come to worship him.'...After listening to the king, they went on their way. And behold, the star that they had seen when it rose went before them until it came to rest over the place where the child was."

In other words, a new star appearing "in the east" is an idiom that means "a new star arises" or comes to be. This is reflected quite well in the Book of Mormon where it is not predicted that the start will be "in the east," but that it will "arise" or "appear." This is, at worst, another example of a lucky guess on Joseph Smith's part. At best, it is another evidence for the ancient origins of the Book of Mormon.

Creation Theme in Mosiah 2

2008-01-13T09:55:00.000-07:00

Recently I discovered that King Benjamin employs creation themes and concepts in his great sermon recorded in Mosiah 2-5. King Benjamin clearly and carefully crafted his ideas around scriptural concepts that would have been familiar to his people. The Book of Mormon is much more complex than we usually realize.

Below is part of the text of Mosiah 2 with words and phrases highlighted that echo words and phrases from the Genesis account (see Genesis 1-3) such as explicit references to "the beginning," "create," "of the dust," "living souls," "breath," "day," and implicit references "mother earth," "the evil spirit," (the serpent) "command," (God's commandments given to Adam and Eve), "labor" (by the sweat of thy own brow..), "garments" (tunic), etc.

9 And these are the words which he spake and caused to be written, saying: My brethren, all ye that have assembled yourselves together, you that can hear my words which I shall speak unto you this day; for I have not commanded you to come up hither to trifle with the words which I shall speak, but that you should hearken unto me, and open your ears that ye may hear, and your hearts that ye may understand, and your minds that the mysteries of God may be unfolded to your view.
10 I have not commanded you to come up hither that ye should fear me, or that ye should think that I of myself am more than a mortal man.
11 But I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen by this people, and consecrated by my father, and was suffered by the hand of the Lord that I should be a ruler and a king over this people; and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me.
12 I say unto you that as I have been suffered to spend my days in your service, even up to this time, and have not sought gold nor silver nor any manner of riches of you;
13 Neither have I suffered that ye should be confined in dungeons, nor that ye should make slaves one of another, nor that ye should murder, or plunder, or steal, or commit adultery; nor even have I suffered that ye should commit any manner of wickedness, and have taught you that ye should keep the commandments of the Lord, in all things which he hath commanded you—
14 And even I, myself, have labored with mine own hands that I might serve you, and that ye should not be laden with taxes, and that there should nothing come upon you which was grievous to be borne—and of all these things which I have spoken, ye yourselves are witnesses this day.
15 Yet, my brethren, I have not done these things that I might boast, neither do I tell these things that thereby I might accuse you; but I tell you these things that ye may know that I can answer a clear conscience before God this day.
16 Behold, I say unto you that because I said unto you that I had spent my days in your service, I do not desire to boast, for I have only been in the service of God.
17 And behold, I tell you these things that ye may learn wisdom; that ye may learn that when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God.
18 Behold, ye have called me your king; and if I, whom ye call your king, do labor to serve you, then ought not ye to labor to serve one another?
19 And behold also, if I, whom ye call your king, who has spent his days in your service, and yet has been in the service of God, do merit any thanks from you, O how you ought to thank your heavenly King!
20 I say unto you, my brethren, that if you should render all the thanks and praise which your whole soul has power to possess, to that God who has created you, and has kept and preserved you, and has caused that ye should rejoice, and has granted that ye should live in peace one with another—
21 I say unto you that if ye should serve him who has created you from the beginning, and is preserving you from day to day, by lending you breath, that ye may live and move and do according to your own will, and even supporting you from one moment to another—I say, if ye should serve him with all your whole souls yet ye would be unprofitable servants.
22 And behold, all that he requires of you is to keep his commandments; and he has promised you that if ye would keep his commandments ye should prosper in the land; and he never doth vary from that which he hath said; therefore, if ye do keep his commandments he doth bless you and prosper you.
23 And now, in the first place, he hath created you, and granted unto you your lives, for which ye are indebted unto him.
24 And secondly, he doth require that ye should do as he hath commanded you; for which if ye do, he doth immediately bless you; and therefore he hath paid you. And ye are still indebted unto him, and are, and will be, forever and ever; therefore, of what have ye to boast?
25 And now I ask, can ye say aught of yourselves? I answer you, Nay. Ye cannot say that ye are even as much as the dust of the earth; yet ye were created of the dust of the earth; but behold, it belongeth to him who created you.
26 And I, even I, whom ye call your king, am no better than ye yourselves are; for I am also of the dust. And ye behold that I am old, and am about to yield up this mortal frame to its mother earth.
27 Therefore, as I said unto you that I had served you, walking with a clear conscience before God, even so I at this time have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together, that I might be found blameless, and that your blood should not come upon me, when I shall stand to be judged of God of the things whereof he hath commanded me concerning you.
28 I say unto you that I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together that I might rid my garments of your blood, at this period of time when I am about to go down to my grave, that I might go down in peace, and my immortal spirit may join the choirs above in singing the praises of a just God.
29 And moreover, I say unto you that I have caused that ye should assemble yourselves together, that I might declare unto you that I can no longer be your teacher, nor your king;
30 For even at this time, my whole frame doth tremble exceedingly while attempting to speak unto you; but the Lord God doth support me, and hath suffered me that I should speak unto you, and hath commanded me that I should declare unto you this day, that my son Mosiah is a king and a ruler over you.
31 And now, my brethren, I would that ye should do as ye have hitherto done. As ye have kept my commandments, and also the commandments of my father, and have prospered, and have been kept from falling into the hands of your enemies, even so if ye shall keep the commandments of my son, or the commandments of God which shall be delivered unto you by him, ye shall prosper in the land, and your enemies shall have no power over you.
32 But, O my people, beware lest there shall arise contentions among you, and ye list to obey the evil spirit, which was spoken of by my father Mosiah.

King Benjamin then builds around this foundation and speaks about the fall, the atonement, and salvation. It is truly one of the greatest sermons ever recorded.