General Conference April 2015–Sunday Afternoon Session by Mike Thomas

Mormon Colours Firmly Nailed Down?

I begin by commending those who have gone before me in reporting and commenting on these conference sessions. The standard and quality of research and writing improves every time. This project is fast becoming a tradition and work whose coming around I anticipate with enthusiasm. We are used to the idea that someone with a Mormon background, such as myself, has an advantage in understanding and insight. Former Mormons have blind spots too, and these posts prove that an advantage is had by those who have never been Mormons, who bring fresh eyes, new perspectives and insights.

As I have read through the essays a theme has emerged for me, one that has coloured this last, Sunday afternoon, session every bit as much as it has coloured the whole conference.

The Mormon Church has figured much in the issue of gay rights in recent years. It began negatively when it emerged that as much as half the $40m donated to the campaign to ban gay marriage in California came from Mormons. At that time the church made an unequivocal statement saying “the formation of families is central to the Creator’s plan,” and urging members to become involved with the cause. You can read about it here.

More recently, however, the Mormon Church has expended a lot of time, energy, and resources into building bridges to the gay community, even having their own official, dedicated web pages Mormons and Gays.org. Mormon leaders pledged to support anti-discrimination laws for gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgender people, as long as the laws also protect the rights of religious groups. You can find a report here.

The church has not changed its position on gay marriage, however. On 10th April 2015 the LDS Church joined with other faith traditions and religious organizations in asking the U.S. Supreme Court to rule against legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. Read more here.

Families Are Still Forever

This Spring Conference weekend has seemed to me a time of regrouping, consolidating,  and nailing colours well and truly to the mast, lest the faithful felt the church leadership had gone soft on its central message; families are forever, marriage is for eternity, progeny its purpose, and men and women its natural heads. To illustrate:

The General Women’s Session is summed up by Lucy Marskell, who observed, ‘If I had to summarise the main message behind this year’s Women’s session it would be, ‘Keeping families together is the solution to persevering under persecution’.’

Her appraisal of the message is soundly biblical and thought-provoking and the way Lucy handles the Mormon Testimony issue deserves attention. But the message is families, and Lucy has some valuable insights to offer.

The Saturday Morning Session review by Jamie Lundy is rich with insights. Jamie observes, ‘As the Saturday morning conference session “strolled along” I began to notice a certain theme developing in the lectures…Many of the lectures centred on the family structure within Mormon practice and theology.’

The Saturday Afternoon Session is covered by Jim Gourlay, who handles one of my favourite subjects, church statistics, with great competence and I will spend some time over it in the days to come. But the quote that catches my eye comes from the same speaker, Elder Quentin L Cook whose talk gave strong emphasis to families:

‘The role of the family in God’s plan is “to bring us happiness, to help us learn correct principles in a loving atmosphere, and to prepare us for eternal life.” The beautiful traditions of religious observance in the home need to be embedded in the hearts of our children.’

The General Priesthood Session is covered by Pastor Tony Brown and if you want a Christian insight into Mormon priesthood you couldn’t do better than read Tony’s commentary. He sums up the Fatherhood section with both humour and sharp insight:

‘As young men listen to the message, they know it is their duty to go on a mission, then find a wife, then have a plethora of children; after all there are many ‘spirit’ children needing to come and work out their plan of salvation.  They then need to be a good father and to lead their children to become faithful Latter Day Saints. Welcome to the Priesthood boys!’

The Sunday Morning Session got Bobby’s attention and he covered a very deceptive and tricky talk by the man who is increasingly the acceptable face of Mormonism, Dieter Uchtdorf. This is a must read if you are to understand Mormonism’s Dog-Whistle Theology But again family loomed large this session in Elder Brent Nielson’s talk about the prodigal.

And so to my own assignment:

The Sunday Afternoon Session

This begins with what, on the face of it, is a call to use our freedoms wisely, and to honour religious freedoms. Elder Robert D Hales’ talk is entitled Preserving Agency, Protecting Religious Freedom. This is clearly a timely reference to the recent attempts at a quid pro quo with the gay community. We will fight for your freedoms but you must recognise ours. The key to the talk is the word, ‘Agency.’

To a Mormon, agency is a touchstone of their religion, a defining principle of their faith, a shibboleth to the faithful. Hales’ talk is an unpacking of Mormon cosmology against a very specific background. He defines the bad guys:

Some are “false accusers … [and] despisers of those that are good.” Others “call evil good, and good evil; [and] put darkness for light, and light for darkness.”

These are likened to Lucifer who, ‘In that Grand Council…used his agency to oppose God’s plan. God said: “Because … Satan rebelled against me, and sought to destroy the agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him, … I caused that he should be cast down.”’

So that is ‘pre-mortal existence’ affirmed, with all its ramifications. We are all children of a Heavenly Father and Mother, Jesus is our elder brother, Lucifer the black sheep of the family, and our purpose is to build for eternity now on the wise use of our agency back then. All this passes through the mind of a Mormon hearing this. The bad guys are those who oppose this family-oriented world-view, this cosmological soap opera.

He presses home his point by defining the good guys and what they are up against:

‘As we walk the path of spiritual liberty in these last days, we must understand that the faithful use of our agency depends upon our having religious freedom. We already know that Satan does not want this freedom to be ours. He attempted to destroy moral agency in heaven, and now on earth he is fiercely undermining, opposing, and spreading confusion about religious freedom—what it is and why it is essential to our spiritual life and our very salvation.’

Jesus, on the other hand, is portrayed as volunteering to obey God’s plan and give mankind our agency to choose, to follow the plan, to obey the commandments. This principle of agency is inevitably meant to chime with people who cherish the freedoms that democracy affords.

The message is, America is a democracy, democracy is God’s idea, religious freedom is God’s idea, so don’t mess with it. To Mormons specifically, the message is, American exceptionalism is part of the Restored gospel, with all its attendant liberties, egalitarianism, and individualism so if you are faithful you will stick to the plan.

What is at stake here, then, is not simply a redefining of societal norms, but the undermining of God’s plan, and the frustration of eternal hopes and ambitions. He ends with a dire warning and a call to action:

‘Our Savior’s Second Coming is drawing nearer. Let us not delay in this great cause. Remember Captain Moroni, who hoisted the title of liberty inscribed with the words “In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.” Let us remember the people’s response: exercising their agency, they “came running together” with a covenant to act.

My beloved brothers and sisters, don’t walk! Run! Run to receive the blessings of agency by following the Holy Ghost and exercising the freedoms God has given us to do His will.’

Anyone who knows the Book of Mormon (and after his recent reading feat Bobby should) will know the story of Captain Moroni. It is the words on the banner that are important;“In memory of our God, our religion, and freedom, and our peace, our wives, and our children.”

Nothing could sound more Tea Party America. Did someone just say, ‘Families are Forever?’

Faithfulness

The theme of faithfulness then follows throughout the session. Elder Kevin Pearson urges members to ‘stay by the tree,’ a reference to Lehi’s dream in the Book of Mormon. The tree is contrasted with the dream’s ‘wide and spacious building,’ the forces of anarchy and change currently surrounding Mormons and threatening the plan.

Elder Raphael E Pino urges members to take an ‘eternal perspective of the gospel’ In other words, the metanarrative of Mormonism, the Plan of Salvation, God’s great plan of happiness for mankind.

Elder Neil L Anderson paints a deceptive picture of the size of the church as a world-wide institution. It is only world-wide in the sense that there are Mormons across the world, but not in the sense that they form a significant majority of the faithful. Most Mormons live in the Americas, the greater part of them in the US. But this is meant to be reassuring. I am reminded that one of the most foolish things a popular public figure can do is believe their own publicity.

He urges Mormons to remember ‘We live, brothers and sisters, in the days preceding the Lord’s Second Coming, a time long anticipated by believers through the ages.’ Thy Kingdom Come is his theme and when Mormons think of this they think of eternal families and what would be lost if they weren’t faithfully having babies, going to the temple, and being eternal family units.

Referencing again the tree of life, Elder Jorge Zeballos urges members to be responsible, the theme of agency coming to the fore again, ‘Let us press forward by learning our duty, making correct decisions, acting according to those decisions, and accepting the will of our Father.’ His will, of course, his purpose, is worked out in the plan.

Elder Russell M Nelson is the final speaker and says the Sabbath is a delight. The theme very much runs along the line of families, family times, family activities on the Sabbath, and so the theme continues.

But before he spoke there was a penultimate message from the first black African General Authority, Elder Joseph W Sitati. His culture and background are not insignificant I suggest. His theme is very much a closing off of the whole conference theme as he reminds True Believing Mormons that procreation is the name of the game, the centre-point of God’s plan. Be fruitful, multiply, and subdue the earth is his theme, and he makes probably the most pointed observation of the whole weekend:

‘The body enables Heavenly Father’s obedient spirit children to experience life on earth. Bearing children gives other spirit children of God the opportunity to also enjoy life on earth. All who are born in mortality have the opportunity to progress and to be exalted if they obey God’s commandments.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the institution that God ordained for the fulfilment of the charge to multiply. A same-gender relationship does not multiply.’ (Emphasis added)

What Robert D Hales began with, premortal existence, agency, and the plan of God, Joseph W Sitati rounds off with a clear call to stick to the plan, have babies the way God designed, and make this arrangement eternal by sealing it in temples.

We may agree with Mormon teaching on gay marriage, sympathise with their being the focus of so much bad feeling because of their stand, and admire the way they stick to their guns, but…What colours should be flying from the mast for Christians? What should be written on any Christian’s standard as he/she stands for truth?

The Bible

It is notable that there is no reference to the clear teaching of Scripture on the issue of homosexual practice, even though the Bible is clear. There is nothing in the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, or the Pearl of Great Price on the subject. The only Scripture they can look to on this issue is the Bible and yet no real Scriptural argument, no Bible apologetic is put.

Nor, indeed, can they build from the Bible anything like the Mormon cosmology, soteriology, or eschatology. Their argument revolves around God’s plan of happiness for man and not God’s authoritative word in Scripture. They are making a stand for a gospel that puts man and man’s happiness at the centre, that seeks man’s exaltation. (Gal.1:6-9)

The Plan

  There is a plan and God’s purposes are clearly told in the Bible:

“The God who made the world and everything in it, (we are created and not procreated Gen.1:27; Is.45:12) being Lord of heaven and earth, (there is none beside him Is.45:5) does not live in temples made by man, (heaven is his throne and the earth is his footstool Is.66:1) nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything.

And he made from one man every nation of mankind (not from one god countless millions of spirit children) to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. (Our purpose is God, not us his purpose)

Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’ (In the sense of being made in God’s image Gen.1:28, being chosen for his purposes Ex.4:22, and finally being born again in Christ Gal.3:26)

Being then God’s offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. (As God’s creatures, made in his image, we are to honour him, not in plastic image worship but in the God-centred lives he gave us)

The times of ignorance God overlooked, (We are profoundly sinful in our ignorance Ro.3:10-18, but God is scandalously generous, not exactingly demanding of us) but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, (patiently giving us the gift of repentance 2 Pet.3:9) because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world (his creation) in righteousness (we have none of our own Philip.3:9) by a man whom he has appointed; and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead.” (And it is in him, in Christ, that we have peace with God Ro.5:1, and will not be condemned Ro.8:1-2; John 5:24)

Acts 17:24-31

Thereafter, as the Larger Westminster Catechism has it; Man’s highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him for ever.

Here is what should emblazon the standard of every Christian:

‘For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen.’ (Ro.11:36)

 

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and is the chairman of Reachout Trust, a ministry to the cults. He writes The Mormon Chapbook blog, curates and writes for the Reachout blog, Bridge of Reason, and for the Reachout monthly e-newsletter. Mike is a public speaker, preacher, and elder in a local Baptist church.

Exploring Mormon Thought

Bobby recently drew to my attention a book he reviewed on Goodreads, entitled Exploring Mormon Thought by Mormon philosopher Blake Ostler. The history of Mormon publishing and commentary is both interesting and revealing and I think worth a closer look.

Mormon publishing began, of course, with the Book of Mormon. Joseph Smith said that it, “was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion…” In publishing terms that has to be a hard act to follow and Smith originally had no intention of following it. Indeed, by ‘revelation’ he made clear that the Book of Mormon was it.

In the 1833 Book of Commandments (the earliest version of what became the Doctrine & Covenants) the Mormon god reveals,

“…and he has a gift to translate the book [of Mormon], and I have commanded him that he shall pretend to no other gift, for I will grant him no other gift.”

By 1835 Smith had already started ‘revising’ the Bible and translating the papyrus he had bought and that he claimed was the Book of Abraham. In the ‘revised’ 1835 version of the Book of Commandments, now published as the Doctrine and Covenants, the same verses read:

“And you have a gift to translate the plates; and this is the first gift that I bestowed upon you; and I commanded that you should pretend to no other gift, until my purpose is fulfilled in this; for I will grant unto you no other gift until it is finished.”

Joseph Smith had experienced the power of publishing and learned quickly to harness it to achieve his developing ambitions. From the Book of Mormon to the early Mormon periodical Times and Seasons he set a precedent followed for the next century and more by those who came after him.

After Smith’s death Brigham Young took on the mantle of prophet, leading the saints to the Salt Lake Valley. Here he arranged to have recorded the public sermons of early prophets and apostles, though mostly of himself, recorded by a team of stenographers. The Journal of Discourses runs to 26 volumes, from Dec.1851 to August 1877. There has been nothing like it since in the Mormon Church.

Although the Church has proved a prolific publisher it has rarely added to its canon of scripture, effectively working from a closed cannon. This is something Mormons criticise Christian churches for doing. They do, however, publish teachings in books, manuals, compilations of previous prophets’ teachings, magazines, and conference reports.

What is striking for me, and this is a very personal comment, drawing from my own experience, is how the ‘authorities’ behind these publications have changed in my lifetime. When I became a Mormon in the early 1970’s most of the publications on any good Mormon’s bookshelves would have been written by General Authorities of the church.

There were, of course, tame and popular volumes like Rulon Howell’s The Mormon Story, The Restored Church, by William Bennett, and vanity published works such as Genet Bingham Dee’s A Voice From The Dust. Nevertheless, it was very much to the prophets that Mormons looked for their collateral reading of Mormon doctrine.

Talmage’s Articles of Faith, and Jesus the Christ were essential reading. Gospel Doctrine by Joseph F Smith, Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith, a compilation of the Discourses of Brigham Young, and of The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith sat alongside the Bible and the Book of Mormon. Even the controversial Mormon Doctrine, 80% of which was a distillation of Joseph Fielding Smith’s Doctrines of Salvation, was written by a Mormon apostle.

The reasoning was sound enough. If you are led by prophets why would you seek guidance from amateur commentators? In ministry terms too, it made no sense to challenge Mormon doctrine on the basis of unofficial statements from what are easily dismissed private interpretations.

What Blake Ostler’s book reminds me of is the departure from the way Mormon leaders of previous generations were regarded as authoritative, their publications widely quoted, their written pronouncements the final word on an issue.

Today’s Mormon world is filled with unofficial commentary on and Mormon apologetic by Mormon academics and lay people. From Stephen Robinson’s Are Mormons Christian, and Richard E Grant’s Understanding Those Other Christians, through to weightier and more academic tomes like Ostler’s, and a small library of Book of Mormon commentaries by a whole raft of unofficial commentators. This is before we begin to look at what is online today, from the more combative, panegyric sites like FAIR and SHIELD, to the more carefully academic work of FARMS at the prestigious Maxwell Institute.

As I have said, this is more a personal note, and I am sure there will be those who easily find fault. But back in the day when answering the question, “What do Mormons believe about…” the go to people were Smith (a raft of Smiths in fact), Young, Talmage, Widstoe, LeGrand Richards, Kimball and, yes, McConkie.

These days their teachings seem to be carefully selected, appropriately edited, and finally brought to the world via a correlation Committee, charged with carefully crafting the perception of Mormonism, while others, freelance you might say, fill the shelves and internet bookmarks in Mormon homes.

Prophets seem to have become little more than window dressing and I would love to read how other people see this issue. Has anyone else noticed these changes? Is anyone surprised that it has not always been the way it is today? What are the most influential unofficial works you hear quoted?

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He now helps to head-up the Reachout Ministry, still researches Mormonism, delivers seminars, and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook

The Miracle of Forgiveness, Ch. 8: As a Man Thinketh

Every generation of Mormons joins a different church. For example, in the earliest, frontier days it was blood and thunder, ‘thus saith the Lord’ hellfire preaching. conquest, gods, defiance and determination, building-a-kingdom thinking prevailed. Folk crossed oceans and continents to be part of it.

The late nineteenth, early twentieth centuries saw a mad dash for respectability and acceptance as Mormon leaders looked east again, seeking investors for their rebuilding project after a regenerate and reconstructed Utah was received into the Union.

Gone were the temple oaths of vengeance against the US Government and people for the death of the prophet, gone the isolationism, in came the warm handshakes in Washington, the cordial invitations to look and see how American we really are. And what could be more American than the thrusting philosophy of self-help?

This chapter of Miracle of Forgiveness (MOF) represents a time when the Mormon Church was most influenced by the self-help philosophies prevalent in 19th/20th century America. Of the twenty three chapters in this book this is the least theological and most typical of its time.

A Brief History of Self-Help

As popularly conceived the self-help movement can be said to have begun with Benjamin Franklin’s Poor Richard’s Almanack (1736) with its mixture of seasonal information, folksy tales, practical household tips, etc. Over 100 years later the Scottish author Samuel Smiles saw the publication of his famous Self Help (1859).

in 1937 Napoleon Hill published his Think and Grow Rich, and that same year Dale Carnegie his How to Win Friends and Influence People. Norman Vincent Peale’s The Power of Positive Thinking was published in 1952.

Today, the “Self-Help and Actualisation Movement” can be divided into two camps. Based on more modern publications such as Thomas Harris’ I’m OK-Your OK (1967) and M Scott Peck’s The Road Less Travelled (1978) there is the victim model. In this view we are products of breeding and environment and our ills are not our fault. The sooner we recognise this, stop judging each other and ourselves, dump our guilt, and move on the happier we will be.

The more traditional view, based on the earlier works of Hill, Carnegie, et.al and carried on today by people like Tony Robbins (Unlimited Power, 1987) is the empowerment model. In this view you are fully responsible for what happens to you and by changing your thinking you can change your circumstances. A famous dictum of this view is, “Whatever the mind of man can conceive and believe he can achieve.” This is the view espoused by Kimball in his book and continues today in the late Stephen R Covey’s 7 Habits of Highly Successful People, a self-help model based on Mormonism.

Mormonism, the quintessentially American religion, fully embraced this self-help philosophy. In MOF Kimball, on p.107, quotes an ‘unknown’ author on the power of man to effect the world positively through the radiation of positive thoughts. The power of Google shows the author to be William George Jordan.

Jordan was an essayist of some repute and in 1902 published a positive thinking book, The Power of Truth. So impressed was Mormon president Heber J Grant, that he purchased the copyright and plates in 1933. The familiar ‘can-do’ attitude and pop-psychology in such books typifies the Mormon attitude to life, lending itself to the peculiarly Mormon idea that men can become gods.

Both victimisation and empowerment models are anathema to the Christian because neither recognises the true fallen nature and plight of man, his accountability before a holy God, his need of a Saviour, and the promise of new hearts and minds through faith in Christ. I want to concentrate on three points that arise from this chapter.

1. Higher Beings

Kimball builds up a picture of the exacting, uncompromising judgement we will all one day face. Citing Rev. 20:12, “and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works,” He reminds us:

“Every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the day of judgement, For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned” (Matt.12:36-37)

He goes on to show that, where the Old Testament commands, “Do not kill,” the higher law insists, “do not be angry” (Matt.5:21-22); where the Law says, “love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy,” the higher law demands, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you…” (Matt.5:43-44); where it was once said, “Do not commit adultery,” God now insists, “Whosoever looks on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery in his heart…” (Matt.5:27-28)

There is nothing secret to God, he insists, and he describes how he imagines our every thought, word and deed is recorded in heaven. This is where it gets peculiarly literalistic, demonstrating the very earth-bound way he looks at things.

Describing how modern technology already has the ability “almost to annihilate man’s personal privacy,” he writes of lie detectors, wire tapping, bugs and transmitters, direction microphones (remember this is 1969) and even dream analysis  before contemplating how much more powerful would be the ability of heaven to record all we think, do, and say:

“In light of these modern marvels can anyone doubt that God hears prayers and discerns secret thought?..If human eyes and ears can so penetrate one’s personal life, what may we expect from perfected men with perfected vision?

Every day, we record voices on recording machines. Every day, pictures are taken and voices recorded and acts portrayed in live transmission over television…Surely it is not too great a stretch of the imagination in modern days to believe that our thoughts as well will be recorded by some means now know only to higher beings!”

Higher beings? Kimball’s Mormon cosmology sees God as an exalted man, and men who have died faithful to the Mormon message as “progressing” further towards this exalted state of higher being. This thought reflects the peculiarly Mormon idea that men and gods exist on a continuum from a premortal existence, through an earthly time of trial and testing, to a place of exaltation as gods. If gods are “just men made perfect” (Heb.12:22-24) then the ways and means of these gods are the ways and means of men perfected.

More troubling still is the idea drawn out from this thinking that Mormon leaders are endowed with a portion of this higher means of discernment and perception.

“A similar power of discernment and perception comes to men as they become perfect and the impediments which obstruct spiritual vision are dissolved.”

This is not prophetic ministry described here but shamanism.

God declares,

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways…As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Is.55:8-9)

“Higher” here does not mean progressed further, developed to a higher plain. God declares his ways are not our ways, his thoughts not our thoughts. When man’s ways are compared to God’s then it is always God’s ways that are the plumb line against which man is judged and the notion that some perfected technology/psychic ability  is responsible for keeping the records of heaven is strange indeed.

Twisted Scripture

Self-help thinking finds comfort from ancient texts of all kinds, suggesting they have tapped into some common ancient wisdom. Scripture from all over the world is pressed into service to make this point and is often badly interpreted to achieve this end. Instead of using sound principles of interpretation, the disciplines of hermeneutics and exegesis, they take the translated words at face value and fit them to their preconceived message.

Kimball uses a classic example here in quoting Proverbs 23:7, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he.” He goes on to write, “Not only does a person become what he thinks, but often he comes to look like it.” But is this what the writer wants us to take from the text?

“Eat thou not the bread of him that hath an evil eye, neither desire thou his dainty meats; For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he: Eat and drink, saith he to thee; but his heart is not with you.” (Prov.23:6-7, KJV)

“Do not eat the food of a stingy man, do not crave his delicacies; for he is the kind of man who is always thinking about the cost. ‘Eat ands drink,’ he says to you, but his heart is not with you. (Prov.23:6-7, NIV)

Do not eat the the bread of a man who is stingy; do not desire his delicacies. For he is like one who is inwardly calculating. ‘Eat and drink,’ he says to you, but his heart is not with you.” (Prov.23:6-7, ESV)

It is true that, What comes out of a man is what makes him unclean…” (Mk.7:20-23) But the proverb is not giving us a formula for helping ourselves by changing our thoughts and, as we will soon see, neither is Jesus. The message of the Proverb is that a stingy man can appear generous but we shouldn’t trust appearances, rather recognise that what appears to be generosity is calculating and we will regret our association with him (Prov.23:8)

The same trick is pulled on a quote from Jude, “…Filthy dreamers defile the flesh…” Ellipses here cover a multitude of sins. When taken in context, these five words mean something quite different:

“Just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding cities, which likewise indulged in sexual immorality and pursued unnatural desire, serve as an example by undergoing a punishment of eternal fire.

Yet in like manner these people also, relying on their dreams, defile the flesh, reject authority and blaspheme the glorious ones.” (Jude 7-8, ESV)

This text is about false teachers leading people astray by relying on dreams, prophecies, subjective experiences, claiming that God leads them and has spoken to them. They defile the flesh (sexual sin, adultery, fornication, polygamy) and reject authority (the established truth of God); sound familiar?

What he, and many others, do is take the words and make them mean whatever they wish them to mean. Never mind what Jude is writing about here (Jude 3,4) here is a text that appears to be about our thought lives so that is what we will make it about.

Whatever…

The Bible has much to say about our thought lives.

Paul reminds us in his letter to the Philippians that our thoughts should be on higher things:

“Whatever is true, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable – if anything is excellent or praiseworthy – think about such things.” (Philip.4:8)

This will be familiar as it appears in the Mormon 13th Article of Faith. Does this affirm all that Kimball has been saying? One of the first lessons of Scripture interpretation is that we never build a doctrine on one verse. What does the Word of God have to say about our minds, our thoughts, and our words?

“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. For to set your mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed it cannot. Those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” (Ro.8:5-8)

This seems to affirm what Kimball is claiming. To fix things, simply change your mind, your thinking, and set your mind on God. But the text tells us that the mind cannot submit to God. Why ever not? Earlier in the same letter Paul describes those who minds cannot submit to God:

“For when you were slaves to sin, you were free in regard to righteousness. But what fruit were you getting at that time from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the end of those things is death…” (Ro.6:20-21)

The mind that is set on the flesh is so set because that mind is a slave to sin. It cannot set its mind on God because it belongs to another, obeys another. All the positive thinking in the world will not change this state and Scripture tells us that “the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ…” (2 Cor.4:4) The Romans text goes on to explain:

“But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” (Ro.6:22-23)

How is the mind that is enslaved to sin set free and become slave to God, and what empowers it to change the focus of its gaze? Paul explains in Ephesians that until we are born again we walk in the futility of our minds, our understanding is darkened, we are ignorant and hard-hearted. It is when we have learned of Christ, put off our old selves, been renewed in the spirit of our minds, and put on our new selves, created after the likeness of God, that we walk in true righteousness and holiness. (Eph.4:17-24)

The writer to the Hebrews helps us:

“Behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when I will establish a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not like the covenant I made with their fathers…For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the Lord:

I will put my laws in their minds, and write them on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.” (Heb.8:8-10)

This “new covenant” was established by Jesus (1 Cor.11:23-26) and is marked by those who come to faith in him being “born again” (John 3:3) and renewed in their hearts and minds (Eph.4:22-24). Only renewed minds can think of heavenly things. Self-help and positive thinking can achieve much I am sure but it cannot free what is enslaved by Satan, it cannot tear the gaze of the unregenerate from the flesh it craves, and it cannot effect the miracle of new birth in you, creating new hearts and minds in a new people of God, made fit for the kingdom not by our own righteousness but by the righteousness of Christ:

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience– among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.
For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.” (Eph.2:1-10)

When Jesus urges us to avoid sin, even in our thought life, when Paul urges us to set our minds on things above, it is not by our own, herculean effort that this is achieved. Rather, it is the regenerate soul, the renewed mind, enabled by the power of the Spirit, set free from sin’s iron grip, it is this mind that increasingly thinks heaven’s thoughts and seeks God’s kingdom come in this world.

He ends with a familiar quote often used by David O McKay:

Sow a thought, and you reap an act;
Sow an act, and you reap a habit;
Sow a habit, and you reap a character;
Sow a character, and you reap a destiny.

If someone dead in their sins sows a thought, be it ever so positive, good and helpful, it will die on the vine because sin will wring the life from it. If someone is born again, renewed in mind, then the thoughts sown will live and thrive, not because of any inherent power, resolve, or determination in the thinker, but because that person is made new in Christ.

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust, a ministry he is now leading since the death of its founder Doug Harris. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook

Book of Mormon Origins – If Not Angels Then Who?

Anyone who has expressed doubts regarding the story of the Book of Mormon will probably have been met with the question, “Well if Joseph didn’t get it from the angel how do you explain the Book of Mormon?”

Today the Book of Mormon does seem an unusual book that appears to have sprung from nowhere. Certainly the Mormon Church likes to present it as such, insisting that it could only have the history claimed for it because there is no other credible explanation.

In my last post we looked at the Bible as a major source for the Book of Mormon. Large sections of the Bible are quoted in the Book of Mormon, including over eighteen chapters of Isaiah. Even the Apocrypha is pressed into service, providing names, concepts and story lines. Beyond the Bible there was ample material on which Joseph Smith could draw to build his stories of the Ancient Americas; but could a simple farm boy have produced such a book?

Joseph Smith – Ignorant Farm Boy?

LeGrand Richards, in his book A Marvellous Work and A Wonder, after listing “42 great truths revealed through Joseph Smith,” makes this comment:

“Joseph Smith, or any other man, could not have obtained all this information by reading the Bible or studying all the books that have ever been written. It came from God.” (p.411)

At the beginning of his book LeGrand Richards quotes Jesus’ words about putting new wine into new wineskins (Mark 2:21-22) to explain why God would choose an uneducated lad – so that He could teach the lad the way He wanted, without any traditions or prejudices to get in the way. Joseph is often cast in the role of ignorant farm boy, thoroughly incapable of writing the Book of Mormon.

This picture of an uneducated lad is misleading. Although he had little formal schooling, he was an imaginative and bright child. His imagination led him into divination and treasure seeking in his teens. Further, Joseph Smith’s parents, far from being the poor country hicks often imagined, were downwardly mobile gentry from Vermont, who moved to Palmyra in 1817, and struggled with a mortgage, debts, and poor crops. His father worked the land in the season and, during the winter, was a school teacher, so there was education in the home.

Even so, the only way the question of an “uneducated lad” innocently seeking truth could possibly arise in the first place is if the story is plausible. But there is no evidence to show that a fourteen-year-old Joseph Smith sought God, went into a grove to pray, saw visions, or was led by an angel to the hidden repository of gold plates.

Joseph, in his later telling of the story, relates how he shared his experience with a local Methodist preacher and was treated with contempt and subjected to ‘the most bitter persecution and reviling’ by ‘the great ones of the most popular sects of the day.’  And yet no account has been found of the vision in any records of the time, or for almost twenty years after. This at a time when newspapers, fighting for circulation, reported regularly the lively tales based on folk-lore and superstition that prevailed at the time.

Fawn M. Brodie, who published a biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, was one of the first to cast doubt upon the authenticity of the story:

“Joseph’s own description of the first vision was not published until 1842, twenty-two years after the memorable event.

If something happened that spring morning in 1820, it passed totally unnoticed in Joseph’s home town, and apparently did not even fix itself in the minds of members of his own family. The awesome vision he described in later years may have been the elaboration of some half-remembered dream stimulated by the early revival excitement and reinforced by the rich folklore of visions circulating in his neighborhood. Or it may have been sheer invention, created some time after 1834 when the need arose for a magnificent tradition to cancel out the stories of his fortune-telling and money-digging.”

James B. Allen, Professor Emeritus of History at Brigham Young University, admits that “none of the available contemporary writings about Joseph Smith in the 1830’s, none of the publications of the Church in that decade, and no contemporary journal or correspondence yet discovered mentions the story of the first vision.” Dr. Allen goes on to state that in the 1830’s, “…the general membership of the Church knew little, if anything, about it.”

This being the case, the Book of Mormon can only be the product of an older, more mature Joseph Smith, whatever its true origins. The “uneducated lad” was yet to discover his destiny at the age of fourteen and knew nothing of angels, dreams, and gold plates.

Back in the Day…

In fact, many of Joseph’s ideas can be traced to the people around him and the speculations of the day:

Official Mormon Church history tells us that Joseph’s father believed in dreams and visions and as early as 1811, when Joseph was only 6, contended for a return to the original church established by Jesus Christ and his apostles. His parents were both, purportedly, independent religious thinkers, his mother believing that all the Christian creeds were wrong – as did many people in that place back in the day.

In fact, in 1809, Alexander Campbell had come out against all Christian creeds and began his own sect (the Disciples of Christ), attempting to return to the early church. Also known as the Campbellites, they were prevalent along that part of the frontier and many later became Mormons because of the similarity in their beliefs.

Even the account of Joseph’s so-called First Vision is remarkably similar to accounts of spectacular conversion stories published in that period. In 1816 Elias Smith, a minister, claimed to have seen “The Lamb once slain” in a vision in the woods. Joseph’s local newspaper published a similar story in October 1823. Alexander Campbell himself wrote in 1824 about a revival in New York during which people had had visions, heard a voice in the woods, or seen the Saviour descending to the tops of the trees.

To people today, the idea of the Urim and Thummim stones, which enabled Joseph to translate the golden plates, is strange, but peep stones were common back in the day. In March 1826 Joseph was charged with being “a disorderly person and an impostor.” He admitted in court that he used a peep stone to discover hidden treasures in the earth. He actually had several, including a dark stone he looked at in his hat, and a clear stone he held up to a candle or the sun.

Joseph’s mother testified to the inventive nature of his mind:

“During our evening conversations, Joseph would occasionally give us some of the most amusing recitals that could be imagined. He would describe the ancient inhabitants of this continent, their dress, mode of travelling, and the animals upon which they rode; their cities, their buildings, with every particular; their mode of warfare; and also their religious worship. This he would do with as much ease, seemingly, as if he had spent his whole life with them.” (Quoted in No Man Knows My History, Fawn Brodie, p.35)

The Book Of Mormon – Couldn’t Have Been Written By A Man?

In view of the above it would seem that Joseph had plenty of material on which to draw for such a book. Added to which, local speculation was rife about a highly civilised race that had been wiped out in a great battle and buried in mounds locally.

A local Congregationalist minister, Ethan Smith, published a book in 1823 called View of the Hebrews; or the Ten Tribes of Israel in America. In it he argues that Native Americans are descended from the ten lost tribes of Israel, a view commonly held back in the day. It sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

The Mormon Church asserts that Joseph could not have written such a complete book in the 60 days in which the translation took place. Yet those who acted as his scribes never actually saw him translate. It is known that there was a curtain between them and Joseph, and they never saw the plates as he translated.

They also testify that his translation was fluent and he never corrected. Since even the best linguists sometimes have to rephrase their translation, Joseph must have been directly inspired by God. Another possibility, of course, is that he was reading from a previously prepared manuscript, or even from memory, considering his unique ability to “tell tales” as witnessed to by his mother. And remember almost one third of the Book of Mormon is lifted from the Bible.

It is impossible to consider the origin of the Book of Mormon without considering Joseph Smith and the background against which he lived. The book can be explained by Joseph’s fertile mind, mastery of language, native cunning, and responsiveness to the tittle-tattle, speculations, and opinions around him.

The Book Of Mormon – An Ancient Document?

In 1831 Alexander Campbell wrote concerning the Book of Mormon:

“This prophet Smith…wrote…in his Book of Mormon every error and almost every truth discussed in New York for the last ten years. He decides all the great controversies; -infant baptism, ordination, the trinity, regeneration, repentance, justification, the fall of man, the atonement, transubstantiation, fasting, penance, church government, religious experience, the call to the ministry, the general resurrection, eternal punishment, who may baptize, and even the question of free masonry [sic], republican government, and the rights of man” (Millennial Harbinger, Feb.1831, p.93)

Not only does Joseph Smith tackle these great nineteenth century controversies in his Book of Mormon, but uses material from publications not in existence at the time of the Nephites.

There are marked parallels between the Book of Mormon and the Westminster Confession and Catechisms. Joseph also appears to have drawn from popular books of his day, and even the local newspaper, to create his theological masterpiece.

Even Shakespeare is paraphrased by Lehi, the father of Nephi,  “hear the words of a trembling parent, whose limbs you must soon lay down in the cold and silent grave, from whence no traveller can return” (2 Nephi 1:14). Hamlet, act 3, scene 1, contain the words “from whose bourn no traveller returns…” Famously, the last word in the Book of Jacob is not “Reformed Egyptian” but French, “I bid farewell, hoping that many of my brethren may read my words. Brethren adieu” (Jacob 7:27)

Not a Shard…

We began with the challenge to account for the Book of Mormon if the official story is questioned. The Book of Mormon is very much a product of its age and fits neatly into the background of the early 19th Century. It is not for us to prove anything, however, but for the Mormon Church to account for the origins of the Book of Mormon.

Mormons argue that they have a prophet and modern revelation, while those who cling to the wreckage of traditional and apostate Christianity have the heavens closed to us – but who has the evidence? Who can “walk Bible lands”, while Mormons pay top dollar to tour guides to take them through non-existent “Book of Mormon lands”, point to Inca and Maya ruins and declare “it might have been something like this”?

Who can walk in the footsteps of Abraham as he travelled from Ur to Haran and Lower Egypt and to Beersheba; or of Israel as they travelled from Egypt, across the wilderness, to the promised land; or of St Paul if they wish, to Seleucia, Lystra, Philippi, Corinth, Athens, Galatia and Rome; or follow in the steps of Jesus himself as he walked the shores of Galilee or the streets of Capernaeum and Jerusalem?

But no one can tell us where Nephi walked, where Mosiah reigned as king, where Alma, son of Alma was judge over his people and high priest over the church, where the wars recorded by Helaman took place and many Lamanites were converted; not even where Jesus walked when he supposedly “walked the Americas”. Joseph Smith could lift his stories from the Bible but the archaeology has stayed stubbornly in Bible lands.

New World archaeology has not turned up a coin, not a pot, not a shard, not a brick, a name, a hill or mountain, a valley or river, not a city, town or village to support Mormon claims for the Book of Mormon. If the places and people didn’t exist then the events cannot have taken place.

It is the Mormon Church that is making great claims for the Book of Mormon and if it can be shown to be false it is for the Mormon Church, and not us, to account for it.

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues at The Mormon Chapbook

Book of Mormon Origins – The Bible, by Mike Thomas

This is the first of a short series we are going through this year on where Joseph Smith may have found some inspiration from in his creation of the Book of Mormon. Many people say how could Smith have simply made it all up? We share the view that he did no such thing, there was a variety of sources involved, chiefly the Bible. We are not claiming to be doing anything really new here, for much more detailed information regarding this please go to Utah Lighthouse Ministry or Mormon Think. This book in particular from UTLM is particularly useful regarding the Bible. However we are going to bring a few points up and are open to some dialogue.

The Synoptics

The first three Gospels are known as the Synoptic Gospels because they are noticeably similar in language and content (from the Greek syn, “together with,” and optic, “seeing” – “seeing together”) 91 percent of Mark’s Gospel is found in Matthew, 53 percent of Mark is found in Luke. Perhaps the authors used a common source we don’t now have, or they may have been interdependent, perhaps later Gospels depended on, Mark, the earliest extant Gospel.

This is not controversial, its how historical accounts are written and/or compiled. The Bible is not dictated from heavenly halls to an earthly amanuensis, it is recorded as God deals with men and women in an historical and cultural context. In its transmission it is subject to the usual vagaries of the historian’s/custodian’s method and purpose, but always with a godly oversight that ensures man’s writing reflects God’s mind, purposes and will. This is the true miracle of Judeo/Christian Scripture, it is recorded and transmitted by man yet remains fully God’s written Word.

Mark was a close associate of Peter and is reporting him, the material coming from Peter’s sermons. Matthew leans heavily on Mark despite being an eye-witness of Gospel events, probably because he simply agreed with Mark’s account and found it a good aide-memoir. Luke describes at the start of his account of Jesus and the early church how he set out to investigate “everything from the beginning” and “write an orderly account” (Luke 1:1-4) providing a researcher’s eye-view.

This understanding throws up some interesting clues about the original writing process. For example, parallels can be found between Matthew 9:2-8, Mark 2:3-12 and Luke 5:18-26, the healing of the paralytic. There is verbatim agreement between Matthew 10:22a, Mark 13:13a and Luke 21:17. One interesting outcome is literary fatigue,  which occurs when one writer depending on another sometimes makes errors of omission, continuity, and detail.

An example of this is found in Luke’s account of the healing of the paralytic (Luke 5:17-26) In his account Mark lays out the story for us in some detail (Mark 2:1-12) but Luke, obviously depending on Mark, forgets to mention, or transfer across, the essential detail that Jesus was in a house, failing to correctly set the narrative. The reader can finally work it out when they get to verse 18 of Luke’s account; “Oh, I see, Jesus was inside a house.” This is a minor glitch and needn’t trouble us, but it demonstrates the mechanics of Gospel writing and transmission.

The Book of Mormon

This understanding is important when considering claims made for the Book of Mormon (BOM) which is meant to be original material translated from the Gold Plates, apart from the acknowledged quotes from the Old Testament. As Joseph Smith builds his picture of the Ancient Americas he is not meant to be depending on pre-existing texts, earlier accounts, or other sources. Certainly, it would make no sense for the BOM to get its material from the New Testament since the BOM describes people who left Jerusalem some 600 years before Christ.

Yet Alma 18 & 19, some 90 years BC, contain a story remarkably similar to the account of the raising of Lazarus as recorded in John 11. Whereas Lazarus had been dead for three days, in the BOM King Lamoni lay comatose for “two days and two nights” in what seems like a “slain in the Spirit” experience that was popular in the early days of Mormonism.

What is interesting is the confusion in the account of Lamoni. They were about to bury him because they insisted, “he stinketh,” which is what was said of Lazarus in John 11:39. But Lamoni was patently not dead so why should anyone say that he smelled of death? The queen herself detects no such smell. To confuse the issue further the BOM prophet Ammon speaks of Lamoni as though he were dead, assuring the queen “…he shall rise again,” echoing Jesus’ words to Martha in John 11:23.

Elsewhere in the BOM this phrase is used correctly to refer to resurrection from the dead, not to describe waking from a Spirit induced sleep (Alma 32:22; Helaman 14:20). Joseph Smith, using the Gospel of John as a source for this story, seems to have unconsciously copied across phrases that made sense in the original but make no sense in the copy. Thus we begin to see that, when Joseph Smith “translated” the BOM he had an an open Bible before him.

Numerous theories have been considered over the years to explain the origin of the BOM, and in a future post we may look at them, but any explanation must surely start with the Bible, which is quoted extensively, consciously, and unconsciously throughout the text. Indeed, Joseph Smith appears to have mined the Bible, including the apocrypha, for stories, phrases, words, names and ideas for his new “scripture.”

The use of the Bible in the BOM occurs on different levels. The most obvious is when BOM characters quote whole chapters from the Old Testament. In 2 Nephi 11:2 the main character writes, “…now I, Nephi, write more of the words of Isaiah, for my soul delighteth in his words,” before going on from chapter 12 to quote Isaiah chapters 2-14. In the index of the BOM there is a list of places where Isaiah and others are quoted and, including the above example, we find:

1 Ne. 20&21/Isa.48&49; 2 Ne.7&8/Isa.50&51; 2 Ne.12-24/Isa.2-14; 2 Ne.27/Isa.29; Mosiah 14/Isa.53; Mosiah 15/parts of Isa.52; 3 Ne.22/Isa.54.

3 Ne.24&25 are chapters from Malachi 3&4 while 3 Ne.12-14 reproduces the Sermon on the Mount from Matthew 5-7.

Aside from these acknowledged examples there are hundreds of unacknowledged uses of the Bible in the BOM, including one or more quotes from 20 of the 27 books of the New Testament. Old Testament books used include Genesis, Exodus, Job, Micah, Hosea and Psalms.

Honour, or Affliction?

Joseph Smith also transferred across errors from the King James Bible. 2 Nephi 19 reproduces Isaiah 9, verse 1 of which reads in both:

“Nevertheless the dimness shall not be such as was in her vexation, when at the first he lightly afflicted the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, and afterward did more grievously afflict her by the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, in Galilee of the nations.” (KJV, BOM)

 

Where the KJV tells that God, “afterward did more grievously afflict her by way of the sea…” modern translations correctly say “made glorious,” or “glorify,” or “honour.” Here are three examples of the correct translation:

 

“But there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish. In the former time he brought into contempt the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the latter time he has made glorious the way of the sea, the land beyond the Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” (ESV)

 

“Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress, in the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honour Galilee of the Gentiles, by way of the sea, along the Jordan-” (NIV)

 

“Yet there will be no gloom for her who was in anguish, as in the former time. He degraded the land of Zebulun, and the land of Naphtali, so afterwards He will glorify the way of the sea, beyond Jordan, Galilee of the nations.” (MKJV)

 

Unfortunately, Joseph Smith didn’t have a more accurate, modern translation to draw from and nor, it seems, did his prophetic gift alert him to the problem.

 

Isaiah, or Paul?

 

Another feature of of this process is the anachronistic use of New Testament paraphrases of Old Testament verses. Alma 5:57 is a reference to 2 Corinthians 6:17 which is, in turn, a paraphrase of Isaiah 52:11;

 

“And now I say unto you, all you that are desirous to follow the voice of the good shepherd, come ye out from the wicked, and be ye separate, and touch not their unclean things; and behold, their names shall be blotted out, that the names of the wicked shall not be numbered among the names of the righteous, that the word of God may be fulfilled, which saith: The names of the wicked shall not be mingled with the names of my people; “

 

So is Alma quoting Isaiah, or Paul? We might understand how Alma would have access to the Isaiah text but how has he come to quote a text from some 100 years in the future?

 

A further example is 1 Nephi 22:20, a quote from Deuteronomy 18:15,19;

 

“Jehovah your God will raise up to you a Prophet from the midst of you, of your brothers, One like me. To Him you shall listen…And it shall happen, whatever man will not listen to My Words which He shall speak in My name, I will require it of him.” (KJV)

 

In the BOM it becomes, “For Moses truly said to the fathers, “The Lord your God shall raise up a Prophet to you from your brothers, One like me. You shall hear Him in all things, whatever He may say to you. And it shall be that every soul who will not hear that Prophet shall be destroyed from among the people.” (1 Nephi 22:20)

This is a paraphrase of the Deuteronomy text from Acts 3:22-23. So how did Nephi some 580 years BC come to quote Luke from c.70AD?

This last text has an interesting, although troubling application in Mormonism. The BOM correctly identifies Jesus as the one spoken of here. The next verse states;

“And now I, Nephi, declare unto you, that this prophet of whom Moses spake was the Holy One of Israel; wherefore, he shall execute judgement in righteousness.” (1 Nephi 22:21)

However, the BOM Seminary Student Manual, commenting on the previous chapter, which follows the same theme and quotes Isaiah 59, begins by identifying Jesus in these chapters but goes on to make an unequivocal application to Joseph Smith;

Verses 1–9 [of 1 Nephi 21] describe the Savior, Jesus Christ, who was called before His birth (see v. 1), whose words cut to the hearts of the wicked like a sharp sword (see v. 2), whose life is unblemished like a polished shaft (see v. 2), who is a light unto the Gentiles (see v. 6), and who is despised of men (see v. 7).

 

The manual goes on to claim:

Because the lives of prophets are sometimes seen as types, or examples, of the Savior, these verses could also properly be applied to Isaiah. They might also be applied to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

• He was foreordained. He testified: “Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council of heaven before this world was. I suppose I was ordained to this very office in that Grand Council” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 365; see also 2 Nephi 3:7–15).

• His words were sharp and his life a polished shaft. He said: “I am like a huge, rough stone rolling down from a high mountain; and the only polishing I get is when some corner gets rubbed off by coming in contact with something else, striking with accelerated force against religious bigotry, priestcraft, . . . lying editors, suborned judges and jurors, . . . backed by mobs, blasphemers, licentious and corrupt men and women—all hell knocking off a corner here and a corner there. Thus I will become a smooth and polished shaft in the quiver of the Almighty (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 304).

• He was sent to be a light unto the Gentiles. The Lord declared to him, “This generation shall have my word through you” (D&C 5:7–10; see also D&C 86:11).

• He was despised of men. The angel Moroni prophesied that both good and evil would be spoken about Joseph among all people (see Joseph Smith—History 1:33).

Lets rerun that:

Because the lives of prophets are sometimes seen as types, or examples, of the Savior, these verses could also properly be applied to Isaiah. They might also be applied to the Prophet Joseph Smith:

 

There is much to be said about the use of typology (typos, ‘seal-impression’) in the Christian faith, but look carefully at what has been done here.

 

1. This is about Christ
2. People are sometimes seen as “types” of Christ (no justification for following this line)
3. Isaiah might be seen as a type of Christ (He is not)
4. Joseph Smith can also be seen as a type of Christ (Where they really wanted to arrive)

 

A ‘type’ is, “a way of setting forth the biblical history of salvation so that some of its earlier phases are seen as anticipations of later phases, or some later phase as the recapitulation or fulfilment of an earlier one.” (New Bible Dictionary)

 

The most obvious example comes from Romans 5:14 where Adam as head of the old creation, is an obvious counterpart to Christ, head of the new creation. All humanity is viewed as being either “in Adam”, in whom “all die”, or, “in Christ”, in whom all are to be “made alive.” (NBD)

 

Biblical typology runs in one direction, whether in anticipation or recapitulation, leading from the type to Christ. Adam, Abel, Abraham, are all types of Christ. So are Noah’s Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, the sacrificial system, cities of refuge, etc. The idea is that we see “shadows” of Christ in these people and things. Paul writes of such things in Colossians 2:16-17. The type is a shadow, the reality is Christ.

 

The Mormon argument appears to run in the other direction, from reality to shadow; the verse is about Christ; Christ has ‘types’,; Isaiah might be a type; so might Joseph Smith. But if you want to find a type of Christ in Isaiah it is not the prophet but King Hezekiah. Isaiah is not a “type” of Christ but he must be made so to achieve the conceit that makes Joseph Smith a type of Christ. It is convoluted but achieves its end if readers are unwary, and don’t know or understand biblical typology.

 

But then, if Mormon uses of the Bible in the Book of Mormon are so slipshod and cavalier I suppose it is too much to expect correct exegesis. This is why it is important to look at these things, because it isn’t just a question of interpretation. There are established, trustworthy, and well understood methods of handling Scripture and when words are twisted there are consequences, in this instance of eternal importance.

 

If you want to read more on the elevation of Joseph Smith in Mormonism you can read Joseph Smith and Jesus the Christ on the Mormon Chapbook.

 

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues on The Mormon Chapbook

 

The Book of Mormon covers a similar period to the Bible, from 2,200 BC to 400 AD but, while the Bible contains 66 books the Book of Mormon contains only 15 books and is less than half the size of the Old Testament.

The Miracle of Forgiveness Ch.1 Life’s Divine Purpose?

By way of an introduction to this 2014 series on The Miracle of Forgiveness, here is a brief introduction to its author, Spencer W Kimball.

Ten Things You Should Know About Spencer W Kimball

1. He was born 28 March 1895, the grandson of early Mormon leader Heber C Kimball and nephew of Joseph Smith Jr. Even today, it may ( perhaps might not) surprise you how closely related Mormon leaders are at the top of the tree, either by marriage or descent. Nepotism is a key characteristic in Mormon leadership.
2. He worked in a bank as a young man, later setting up a successful insurance and savings business. Many Mormon leaders come from business backgrounds, which is good for business since the Mormon Church has been described by Newsweek Magazine in 2011 as a “sanctified multinational corporation,” and “the General Electric of American religion.”
3. Those who heard him speak remarked on his quiet, hoarse voice. From 1950 he was treated for throat cancer and surgery permanently impaired his speech. To overcome this he would use a special ear-mounted microphone so he could he heard.
4. In 1914 he was called to serve a mission in the Swiss-German mission but was shipped back to the Central States Mission following the assassination of Archduke Franz-Ferdinand.
5. He wanted to be a schoolteacher but he was drafted into the army in 1917, the year the US entered the First World War.
6. He married Camilla Eyring in November 1917. She was born 1894 in Chihuahua, Mexico, where early Mormon polygamists had fled back in 1885 to avoid federal law. She is the aunt of current first counsellor in the presidency, Henry B Eyring. Her father, Vernon Romney, is said to be the last Mormon to practice polygamy, as recently as 1954 when two of his wives died. You may have noticed the name Romney, a familiar dynastic Mormon name that can be traced by marriage all the way back to Parley P Pratt, one of the church’s earliest apostles.
7. He became an apostle in 1943 and the then church president directed him to work with Native Americans who, in those days, were universally called Lamanites among Mormons.
8. His work led him to believe that as “Lamanites” turned to Mormonism the curse pronounced on them in the Book of Mormon making them “dark and loathsome” (1 Nephi 12:22-23; 2 Nephi 5:21) was visibly being lifted, fulfilling a prophecy they would become “white and delightsome” (2 Nephi 30:6, 1959 ed. changed since to “fair and delightsome” but carrying the same meaning) He is quoted as saying, “I saw a striking contrast in the progress of the Indian people…today they are fast becoming a white and delightsome people…for years they have been growing delightsome, and they are now becoming white and delightsome.” (Improvement Era, Dec.1960, pp922-23)
9. It was Spencer W Kimball who presided over the church (1974-1985) when the famous 1978 announcement was made that Negroes would no longer be barred from holding office in the Mormon Church.
10. His book The Miracle of Forgiveness has been a great burden to generations of Mormons, those who have grasped its message discouraged by the impossible task Kimball lays on them. Many have come to realise, as did Paul in Romans 7, that they cannot deliver themselves from their sin. Unfortunately, Mormonism insists it is possible and offers no Christian/biblical solution to this dilemma, as we will see.

The Miracle of Forgiveness

A Christian might reasonably expect a book entitled The Miracle of Forgiveness to focus on God and his purposes, grace and mercy, Christ and the work of the cross. After all, miracles are his province and forgiveness in his gift. It is true that the Divine is part of the Mormon story, yet the striking thing is that the focus from the start is man, the creature rather than the Creator (Ro. 1:25)

The chapter begins by addressing the destiny of man, the journey of man’s life on earth, and the goal of man in eternity. When it addresses Life’s Divine Purpose one might expect that here, after all, is the correct focus. But this Mormon prophet insists that the Divine purpose is, “to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.” (Moses 1:39, Pearl of Great Price)

He goes on to write that, “…immortality and eternal life constitute the sole purpose of life…” Later in this discussion of life’s Divine purpose he writes:

“…that man is the supreme creation, made in the image and similitude of God and His Son, Jesus Christ; that man is the offspring of God; that for man, and man alone, was the earth created, organised, planted and made ready for human habitation; and that, having within him the seeds of godhood and thus being a god in embryo, man has unlimited potential for progress and attainment.”

It is to this end, the progress of man, man’s attaining his unlimited and divine potential, immortality and eternal life, godhood, that Spencer Kimball writes. This, he insists, is the drama and purpose of life. Yet the psalmist sees it quite differently:

“You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will receive me to glory.

Whom have I in heaven but you? And there is nothing on earth that I desire besides you.

My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever.

For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you.

But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works.” (Ps.73:24-28 ESV)

The psalmist expects not to receive glory but to be received into God’s glory; his desire, in heaven or on earth, is God and not his own godhood; his strength is God and not his own ability to attain; his “portion,” or reward, is God and not his own achievements; his desire, his refuge is God and not his own “progress” and the only works that concern him are the works of God.

As the Westminster Catechism rightly puts it, “Man’s chief purpose and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him for ever.”

It is important to keep in the forefront of your mind that while for Christians our chief purpose and highest end is the glory of God, for Mormons God’s chief purpose and highest end is their own attainment and progress, achieving their full potential – the glory of man. Kimball writes that this brings glory to God, but this is not God glorified in his creation but God glorified in our glorification. His book is a self-help manual on how this is achieved.

Belief in God

Unsurprisingly, the first requirement is belief in God. But belief here is not trust in God and his finished work in saving sinful and helpless man through the cross as Christians understand it, but a belief that God exists and an understanding that God’s purpose is our immortality and eternal life. He writes, “This book presupposes a belief in God and in life’s high purpose.”

This is not the familiar Bible story of man’s low state resulting from the fall, and God’s reaching down in Jesus to save man from himself. Rather, it is the story of man’s high purpose in striving for and achieving godhood. He touches on many key shibboleths of the Christian faith – repentance, forgiveness, mercy, etc. but, having “believed” there is a God, he insists we co-operate with God, following a strict code of laws, to achieve our own exaltation. He writes:

“Jesus Christ, our Redeemer and Saviour, has given us our map – a code of laws and commandments whereby we might attain perfection and, eventually, godhood.”

Mormonism is an exhaustive, if often confusing, account of the plan by which this is achieved. Confusing because, where the Bible makes clear that Christ’s is a once-for-all sacrifice, making salvation in the kingdom of God available “to all who believe,” (Eph.2:8) to a Mormon Christ’s sacrifice made resurrection(what Mormons call salvation) inevitable and universal, regardless of faith, and everything beyond that is provisional upon our obedience to the Mormon plan. If sufficiently faithful we will enter God’s highest heaven and become gods ourselves (what Mormons call exaltation)

The Plan

This plan, according to the Mormon prophet, posits the following ideas:

1. Pre-mortal Life

That we had a pre-mortal existence, first as spirit matter, which was eternal and co-existent with God, then as spirit children of God, born of heavenly parents with spirit bodies made of this eternally existing spirit matter. So we are, in effect, as eternal as God himself since what we were made of co-exists eternally with him.

This is contradicted by the Bible which states, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Gen.1:1) In other words, there was a beginning for everything, and when it began God was already there. Paul refers to the God “who calls into existence the things that do not exist” (Ro.4: 17)

Later we read, “By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.” (Heb.11:3) This is directed at the mistaken Greco-Roman idea that matter existed eternally, and the erroneous gnostic notion that evil was a lesser, eternal force alongside God. Again, speaking of the eternal Word (Jesus), “All things were made through him, and without him was not anything made that was made.” (John 1:3) God is eternal, all else is temporal.

2. Mortal Life

He also states that in this “first estate” we underwent a period of training and testing to be admitted into this present, mortal state. Our current estate as mortals on earth is evidence that we passed the test and our primary purpose in becoming mortal is to gain a physical body, like God’s physical body, and undergo further testing.

We do this with no recollection of our “first estate.” This is Mormonism’s ‘faith,’ i.e. a blind following, uninformed by experience, knowledge or memory. Christians speak of and produce “reasons to believe” when challenged in our faith. There cannot be found any reason to believe this account of our origins outside the instruction of Mormon leaders and the collective imagination of Mormons.

Mormons will refer to Bible texts such as Jeremiah 1: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations” How, Mormons ask, could God know Jeremiah before his birth if not in a pre-mortal life? But the question is a denial of a fundamental characteristic of the omniscient God, God’s foreknowledge, “I am God, and there is none like me, declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’” (Isaiah 46:9-10)

There is a certain circular reasoning going on here, in which the fact of our being here is presented as evidence that we passed our pre-mortal test while, at the same time, in being here we are deliberately deprived of any memory of it that might help us get oriented on this journey, or travel it with any sure conviction.

3. Immortal Life

Our immortal future depends in large part on our passing this current testing. That future is potentially to be lived in one of three more states, or “degrees of glory,” depending on our level of faithfulness and obedience. The most faithful he assures us will be gods, explaining that after death, “…there would be a resurrection or reunion of the body and the spirit, which would render us immortal and make possible our future climb toward perfection and godhood.”

Now note the following carefully:

“This resurrection has been made available to us through the sacrifice of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Creator of this earth, who performed this incomparable service for us – a miracle we could not perform for ourselves. Thus the way was opened for our immortality and – if we prove worthy – eventual exaltation.”

He ends with this warning that, “All transgressions must be cleansed, all weaknesses must be overcome, before a person can attain perfection and godhood. Accordingly the intent of this book is to stress the vital importance of each of us transforming his life through repentance and forgiveness.”

Make no mistake, repentance is what is needed when you fall away from the plan, walk off the map, but repentance and forgiveness does no more than put you back on track. It is like the dispensation in particular circumstances that allows you to take your exam at a later date. Generous, to be sure, but the exam must still be sat and passed. Like everyone else, you will be “saved” in the Mormon sense of being resurrected, but what every Christian might understand to be eternal life in the kingdom of God – achieved by grace, through faith in Christ “to all who believe” (Eph.2:8-9) – is in Mormonism only attainable by the strictest adherence to the plan.

“Repentance and forgiveness are part of the glorious climb toward godhood. In God’s plan, man must voluntarily make this climb, for the element of free agency is basic. Man chooses for himself, but he cannot control the penalties. They are immutable. Little children and mental incompetents are not held responsible, but all others will receive either blessing, advancements, and rewards, or penalties and deprivation, according to their reaction God’s plan when it is presented to them and to their faithfulness to that plan.”

Three things must be taken into account as you read:

First, what Mormonism offers is a replacement for Christianity. There is nothing here that remotely resembles what our Bibles teach and have taught for millennia. To make its claims Mormonism has to teach that Christianity is corrupt and that Mormons alone have the truth and the authority to teach and administer that truth. This is what they do claim and, to validate their claims, they proof-text the Bible, taking Scripture out of context to create something not found in the Bible.

Secondly, Mormons like to claim their message is so strange to us because the Bible is corrupt. The Book of Mormon speaks of, “many plain and precious things taken away from [the Bible]” (1 Nephi 13: 28) Mormons think they are offering the restoration of those things and believe our knowledge deficient because the Bible is deficient. This sets a dangerous precedent and calls into question every claim God has to being faithful and trustworthy.

Finally, and most importantly, the Bible is not deficient, nor is it silent or ambiguous, as they imagine. From the Bible we know:

The nature of God, “the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God…” (1 Timothy 1:17)

His purpose in creation, “…that God may be all-in-all” (1 Cor.15:28)

What we are and are meant to be, “created in [God’s] own image” (Gen.1:27)

The reason Christ came, died, was buried and resurrected, “by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners” (Ro.5:18-19) “The saying is trustworthy and deserving of full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners” (1 Tim.1:15) Christ came to save us, to be the way not to show us the way (John 14:6)

How we gain this blessing for ourselves, “The word is in you, in your mouth and in your heart that is, the word of faith that we proclaim; If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (Ro.10:8-10) Salvation is gained by faith and is not a universal resurrection.

What is the Miracle of Forgiveness, “In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace…” (Eph.1:7) The miracle is that, according to the riches of God’s grace, and by the blood of Christ, we are forgiven and redeemed, made right with God (Heb.4:14-16) Because we have confessed and believed and are now found “in him,” we have become Christians (read Ephesians 1)

What we are if we are Christian, “If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation” (2 Cor.5:17) Not the old creature put back on the path but a new creature. A Christian is a new creature, not the old creature given another chance. This is the “Miracle” missing from Mormonism. This is what we want Mormons to know, even as we know it.

The destiny of man and how he is to achieve that destiny. “For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened—not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. He who has prepared us for this very thing is God, who has given us the Spirit as a guarantee.” (2 Cor.5:4) The destiny of the man of faith is life in God, not life as god.

The purpose of all this, “Man’s chief purpose and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him for ever.”

There is another overview by Ann Thomas on The Mormon Chapbook and another helpful podcast from Vincent McCaan on this Mormonism Investigated blog

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook

The Windmills of the Mormon Mind

 

 

The mists of time lend one a certain romance, Alan Bennett

Its that time of year again. Folk are getting excited about the season, buying and wrapping gifts, some have already got a carol service or two under their belt, along with some mince pies perhaps, and there is a general sense of good will in the air. Mormons are no different in this respect. The December Ensign touches on the great themes of Christmas, the birth of a son, the story of shepherds and angels, the visit of kings. Mormons like to think of themselves as just like everyone else at this festive season.

At the same time, the traditional message of Mormonism is one of distinctions, things that set Mormons apart. Think of the founding claims of Mormonism; other churches are corrupt and wrong, Mormonism is “the only true church,” Mormons have the only true gospel, restored to earth after 1900 years of darkness and apostasy.

How do Mormons hold these conflicting ideas at the same time? How can they be like other Christians and yet so distinct as to be “the only true church?” When we read the items in the Ensign the discerning among us will easily identify the distinguishing marks of Mormonism.

Happiness a Spiritual Fruit?

The Bible message is of God come to dwell among men to serve and, ultimately, to die for men’s sins, then rise again, breaking the bonds of death and inviting all who would to come to God by grace, through faith in Christ (Romans 10:9-13; Hebrews 4:14-16)

The Mormon message is of the Son of God come to dwell among men, to inform and educate people in the “great plan of happiness” God the Father has devised for us. Mormon “salvation” is no more than resurrection, while what Christians understand to be salvation, eternal life in the kingdom of God, Mormons call exaltation and it is earned.

Henry B Eyring states, “You have felt happiness as you have kept the commandments of God. That is the promised fruit of living the gospel (see Mosiah 2:41)” The first presidency message (p4) mentions happiness no fewer than 13 times in an article just 656 words long. Happiness is the great theme of Mormonism, the gift Mormons bring their neighbours, but where does the Bible say Christ died to educate us in the art of happiness?

The Bible clearly teaches that “the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control…” (Galatians 5:22-23) Something as trite and temporary as happiness is not found here. Note also that those things that Mormons would regard as the root of their happiness, those acts of obedience demonstrated in kindness, faithfulness etc. are not roots at all but they are fruit of an abiding in Christ, as explained in Jesus’ description of the vine and the branches in John 15.

God and Son

But isn’t Jesus “the Son of God” as Mormons say?  Another distinction is discovered in the visiting teaching message p7, The Divine Mission of Jesus Christ: The Only Begotten Son. Here we learn that the only thing that distinguishes Jesus from the rest of mankind is not his position as the second member of the Christian godhead but because he was born of God the Father and a human mother.

In Mormonism all mankind is literally born of God in a premortal existence and God is as much our Father as he is Jesus’ Father, Jesus himself being our elder brother by premortal birth.  In this familiar picture of Joseph Smith’s “First Vision” you are effectively seeing a father and two sons. That being so, Mary was also a daughter of God in that premortal existence, which means that for Jesus to be born on earth of a Divine Father and mortal mother the Mormon God would have to have had an incestuous relationship with Mary. Mormon leaders have asserted as much:

“The Only begotten of the Father (Moses 5:9) ‘These name titles all signify that our Lord is the Only Son of the Father in the flesh. Each of the words is to be understood literally. Only mean only; Begotten means begotten; and Son means son. Christ was begotten by an Immortal Father in the same way that mortal men are begotten by mortal fathers” (Bruce R McConkie, Mormon Doctrine)

“The Saviour was begotten by the Father and his Spirit, by the same Being who is the Father of our spirits, and that is al the organic difference between Jesus and you and me.” (Brigham Young, JOD 4, 218)

Joining the Parade

Then there is an article on becoming Better Saints Through Interfaith Involvement (p28) There are two important points I want to raise here. Mormonism is founded on the claim that all churches are wrong and all those who profess the Christian message of the past two thousand years are corrupt (JSH 1:19) That message is being taken to your neighbours as you read this, make no mistake. John Taylor, third Mormon president said of such initiatives:

“We talk about Christianity, but it is a perfect pack of nonsense…Myself and hundreds of the Elders around me have seen its pomp, parade, and glory; and what is it? It is a sounding brass and a tinkling symbol (sic); it is as corrupt as hell; and the Devil could not invent a better engine to spread his work than the Christianity of the nineteenth century.” (JOD 6, 167)

This statement was made in 1893. Exactly 220 years later Mormons find themselves encouraged to join this same parade of pomp and glory.

My second point regards the claim Mormons make that Evangelical Christians “don’t believe in good works.” It is a common enough statement to those who take the trouble to engage with Mormons but it is patently not true. Mormons should know this since it is they who “do good works” alongside other churches that teach a gospel of grace.

They waste no time telling the world how engaged they are with their neighbours of “other faiths,” as they like to call us, and yet they insist we don’t believe in good works. They expect to find us idle even as we work alongside them for the good of the wider community

How do Mormons deal with such cognitive dissonance? To be so conflicted must come at some great cost. They boast they are different yet insist they are like us. They despise our parade and yet they want to join in, bang their drum, and mingle with the crowd. They accuse us of having a cheap grace yet happily work alongside us as we sacrifice ourselves in service to others, all the time boasting of their own works yet failing to recognise ours.

Generations

The first thing to realise is that different generations join a different Mormon Church. The Mormons of the 19th century were prepared to go to prison, even to die rather than relinquish their practice of polygamy. Even into the early 20th century Mormon leaders died on the run from the law.  A whole package of doctrine supported this faith that polygamy was the order of heaven and no earthly power was going to stop it.

In much of the 20th century, while Mormons no longer practiced polygamy outside their temples, that package of doctrine was till taught and clearly understood by Mormons who looked to a future time when it would be restored, perhaps in the millennium. I remember well and taught enthusiastically all that Mormonism had taught about this “celestial doctrine.”

In the last days of the 20th century and into this 21st century Mormons regard polygamy as an historical curiosity, something of its time but certainly of no great doctrinal significance for them. You will hear Mormons dismiss it and say they don’t even fully understand the whole business other than as something that happened a long time ago. The same might be said, need I remind you, of the Mormon doctrine of denying Black people the priesthood until July 1978.

The second point is demonstrated by another article on page 54, a report about sermons from early church leaders recovered because transcribed from the shorthand in which they were originally recorded. You might expect the Mormon Church to shy away from publishing such potentially incriminating material since the Mormonism of those far distant days is very different from the Mormonism of 2013/14.

But there is something about the passing of time that lends a certain romance to the good bits of history and something of irrelevance to the bad. The Mormon Church plays on this helpful illusion that time lends to just about anyone’s story.

The mists of time allow them to say they don’t really know what was meant so long ago and in such circumstances. Scott Gordon said something like this, as reported in Bobby’s blog post last week. In such ways the different generations of Mormonism are built up, given a new, contextual meaning where once their meaning was timeless.

Where we see Mormons conflicted Mormons refuse to see such conflict. The Mormon Church helps by continually rewriting their history and urging Mormons to think only of what is in front of them, their generation’s story. It depends on where in this web of lies you are but each generation has found comfort in its own untruths. I was thinking of the words of the song Windmills of Your Mind –

Like a tunnel that you follow
To a tunnel of its own
Down a hollow to a cavern
Where the sun has never shone

We can’t assume the Mormon standing in front of us has traversed any particular tunnel or is familiar with the particular dark cavern we first encountered Mormonism. Each will have their own set of ideas, their own understanding to reassure them and it is these, as much as anything, we must first deal with.

What is certain is that the Son has not shone in their lives and it is the message of grace, of the cross that is always our destination as we witness; that never changes. This Christmas lets remember the child in a manger born to die on a cruel cross for the sins of the world, including Mormons who, despite their protestations to the contrary, have yet to know him.

Lorenzo Snow–21 Loving God More Than we Love the World, by Mike Thomas

Most of this chapter comprises extracts from a sermon Lorenzo Snow delivered just after he had been called as president of the Quorum of the Twelve in April 1889. That date, that period, is significant because many of the conditions that prevailed some fifty years earlier were again being experienced by the Mormon Church.

In her seminal biography of Joseph Smith, No Man Knows My History, the historian Fawn M Brodie wrote:

“Mormon theology was never burdened with otherworldliness…Wealth and power [Mormons] considered basic among the blessing both of earth and of heaven…” (No Man Knows My History, 1966 ed. pub. Alfred A Knopf, p.p. 187/8)

A quote from an 1831 letter throws light on the Saints’ view of wealth and entitlement:

“It passes for a current fact that there are immense treasures in the earth, especially in those places in the State of New York from whence many of the Mormonites emigrated last spring; and when they become sufficiently purified, these treasures are to be poured into the lap of their church; to use their own language, they are to be the richest people in the world.” (Ezra Booth, letter written late in 1831. Quoted in Brodie p. 187)

This understanding has bearing on the subject of Snow’s sermon. Here are the salient facts surrounding both periods, 1835 and 1889:

By 1835 Joseph Smith had built his own little kingdom in Kirtland

By 1877, the time of his death, Brigham Young had built a kingdom in the Salt Lake Valley

In 1835 rumours of polygamy were causing problems for the church and Joseph Smith was forced to deny the rumours, even though his denial was a palpable lie.

In 1887 the Edmunds-Tucker Act allowed the government to effectively dissolve the Mormon Church as a legal entity because of the practice of polygamy and, in 1890, it was this that forced the hand of church president Wilford Woodruff who issued the Manifesto abandoning polygamy.

In 1835 a new temple had been completed and had drained church resources

By 1890 the Salt Lake temple was completed and had drained church resources

So, what did the Saints do in 1835 to solve their financial problems? What caused Lorenzo Snow to refer to an apostasy?

Land-Grabs and Dodgy Banking

in the mid 1830’s Mormons entered a period of frenzied land speculation led by Joseph Smith himself. In other words, if there was an apostasy, Joseph was chief heretic. There was a huge influx of immigration that caused the population in and around Kirtland to jump 62 percent and the question of where they would all live had dollar signs spinning in the eyes of those able to buy and sell property.

In Kirtland, lots jumped from $50 to $2,000, and surrounding farms from $10 and $15 an acre to $150. Joseph began buying and selling land with the rest. His credit, backed by the collateral of the new temple built for some $70,000, was good so he borrowed, speculated to accumulate. Along with three others, he began a frenzy of borrowing and purchasing, hoping to make riches from the incoming Mormon population. Of course, this created a property bubble that couldn’t last but that didn’t seem to trouble the prophet.

Mormon apostle, Parley P Pratt was so concerned he wrote a letter to Joseph Smith in which he declared himself, “…fully convinced that you, and president Rigdon, both by precept and example, have been the principle means in leading this people astray, in these particulars, and having myself been led astray and caught in the same snare by your example, and by false prophesying and preaching, from your own mouths, yea, having done many things wrong and plunged myself and family, and others, well nigh into destruction, I have awoke to an awful sense of my situation, and now resolve to retrace my steps and get out of the snare, and make restitution as far as I can.” (quoted in Tanner, Mormonism-Shadow or Reality, p.528)

The level and extent of speculation was so damaging it depreciated paper money going into the United States Treasury. On July 11, 1836 Andrew Jackson issued a specie circular, forbidding agents to accept anything but gold and silver for the sale of public land (specie is a term for money in the form of coins and paper)

According to the History of the Church, Joseph Smith had marked September 11, 1836 as the day God would redeem Zion. Quoting in part Isaiah, he said, “Then, for brass the Lord will bring gold, and for iron silver, and for wood brass…and then the land will be worth possessing and the world fit to live in.” Unfortunately, the prospect facing the Saints was bleak, and they faced being driven out of Missouri as those who once were pleased to shelter them now lost all sympathy for them.

Buried Treasure

Money had to be gained from somewhere, but the specie ban made it very difficult. It was then that news of buried treasure reached Joseph, first in the form of a story in the Painesville Telegraph.

War treasure was said to be buried beneath a house in Salem, Massachusetts, and a convert named Burgess claimed he was the only one who remembered its exact location. I know what your thinking; he surely isn’t going to fall for this. Well, the pull of the old days was just too strong, the promise of buried treasure too tempting, and he arrived in Salem early in August, 1836.

Joseph’s true objective could not be revealed and in this he faced a dilemma. His initial explanation was that this was a mission tour. The truth had to come out at some time however and, as so often before, he solved his problem by receiving a revelation, Doctrine & Covenants 111 which begins:

“I, the Lord your God, am not displeased with your coming this journey, notwithstanding your follies. I have much treasure in this city for you, for the benefit of Zion, and many people in this city, whom I will gather out in due time for the benefit of Zion, through your instrumentality.

Therefore, it is expedient that you should form acquaintance with men in this city, as you shall be led, and as it shall be given you. And it shall come to pass in due time that I will give this city into your hands, that you shall have power over it, insomuch that they shall not discover your secret parts; and its wealth pertaining to gold and silver shall be yours. Concern not yourselves about your debts, for I will give you power to pay them.” (v.v 1-5)

Mormons today who get their Mormon history only from official sources will know nothing of Joseph’s true motives, of the Saints’ true financial and moral dilemma. The heading for section 111 disingenuously reads:

“Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Salem, Massachusetts, August 6, 1836. At this time the leaders of the Church were heavily in debt due to their labors (sic) in the ministry. Hearing that a large amount of money would be available to them in Salem, the Prophet, Sidney Rigdon, Hyrum Smith, and Oliver Cowdery traveled (sic) there from Kirtland, Ohio, to investigate this claim, along with preaching the gospel. The brethren transacted several items of Church business and did some preaching. When it became apparent that no money was to be forthcoming, they returned to Kirtland. Several of the factors prominent in the background are reflected in the wording of this revelation.”

They were not, however, “in debt due their labours in the ministry,” they were in debt because of wild and unsustainable land and property speculations, Joseph leading the charge.

It had been ten years since he had dug for buried gold but he hadn’t left behind his simple faith in the folklore and blind superstitions that had led to his early treasure-seeking adventures in the first place. Unfortunately for him, Burgess soon abandoned this venture, claiming the city had changed so much he could no longer be sure of the treasure’s location. The biter bit? It would seem so, since Joseph had fallen victim to the same scam he had pulled on others and, like them, he walked away without the gold in which he so believed and on which he had so depended to get him out of his dilemma.

Dodgy Banking

Joseph Smith didn’t come back entirely empty-handed, having negotiated more loans from companies in the East. However, he couldn’t go on living indefinitely on borrowed funds. At some point, he knew, his debts had to be liquidated and the Saints’ finances established on a more sure footing.  It was now, and in the same spirit of wild speculation, that Joseph Smith established his own bank, the Kirtland Safety Society Bank Company. This wasn’t unusual at the time; the rapid expansion of the West created a demand for money that wasn’t being met by existing banking institutions.

Again, Joseph legitimised this new venture with a new revelation. The Saints were assured that Smith’s bank would “grow and flourish, and spread from the rivers to the ends of the earth, and survive when all others should be laid in ruins.” (Reported in Zion’s Watchtower, March 24, 1838)

The bank’s establishment was announced in January 1837 in the Messenger and Advocate, which issued an appeal…”We invite the brethren from abroad, to call on us, and take stock in our Safety Society; and we would remind them also of the sayings of Isaiah…’Surely the isles shall wait for me, and the ships of Tarshish first, to bring thy sons from far, their silver and their gold with them, unto the name of the Lord thy God.’”

The problem was that this rapid expansion of banking facilities to meet these needs led to a chaotic banking system and on January 1, 1837, the same day the Kirtland bank’s printed bank notes were issued, the Ohio legislature refused the bank’s incorporation.

Joseph told his followers that it was because they were Mormons, but the truth was only one bank was allowed incorporation and the legislature was simply gaining control of a spiralling situation.

To get around the problem Joseph stamped his bank notes with the prefix anti and the suffix ing around the word Bank, creating the Kirtland Safety Society Anti-bank-ing Company. Now it was a quasi-bank, needn’t be incorporated and, if he could pull this off long enough to convince investors his problems might be solved.

The problem was he didn’t have the assets to back up the notes being printed. Bills were being paid, debts cleared and, for a fleeting fortnight, Kirtland was rich; but all on notes not worth their face value.

Joseph Smith confidently assured people he had $60,000 in the vaults and a further $600,000 readily accessible. The truth is he had $6,000 and access to not a penny more. He said there was no more than $10,000 in bills in circulation when, in fact, there was more than $150,000.

By January 27 merchants were refusing notes and the bills were streaming back into Kirtland.  Joseph Smith redeemed the notes but soon realised a run on the bank would ruin him so stopped taking his own money. By February 1 every dollar of Kirtland money was worth no more than twelve and a half cents!

The truth is, the bank had always been illegal, the fixed penalty for the crime was $1000 with informers taking a share of the fine. Joseph Smith had enemies aplenty and it didn’t take long for one to swear a writ against him. By March 24 Joseph was on trial and ordered to pay the $1000 penalty, plus costs. The final reckoning established that the Mormon leaders owed non-Mormon individuals well over $150,000.

So, Lorenzo Snow-1889

In 1889 the Mormon Church had arrived at the same place. Church property had already been confiscated under the Edmunds-Tucker Act, the $4m temple had depleted church funds and there was another bubble, this time a railroad bubble, as well as overbuilding that would lead to the panic of 1893. Hundreds of banks would close across America, thousands of businesses go under.

Lorenzo Snow’s sermon was aimed at Mormons who might be tempted to follow the example of their founding prophet and speculate their church out of existence and themselves into “apostasy.” It is clear that he was not impressed by Joseph’s conduct, which he had witnessed first-hand. Nevertheless, he hawked around the “official” account which had been worked up over the years, and that exonerated Joseph and blamed “apostate” church members as well as some leaders.

Mormons were still facing financial ruin and would still need to resolve their financial difficulties. In 1899,  now as president of the church, Lorenzo Snow toured the territories preaching tithing. You can read about that in a previous post. There the church’s subsequent change in fortune was described in this way:

“The church’s 1898 deficit of $1.25m became a net worth of $3.2m by 1904 and, while church leaders ascribed the changing fortunes of the church to God’s blessing tithe payers, it may have had more to do with the saints gaining full statehood and involvement in the rapid growth of the US economy from 1897 to 1907. Of course, the eyes of faith would have it otherwise, with the fortunes of the United States tied in with the fortunes of Mormons.”

When Mormons became American Mormonism became financially secure and Mormonism the American Religion.

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues at The Mormon Chapbook

General Conference, October 2013, Priesthood Session Review

These days Mormon Conferences are rather like the Reader’s Digest; convivial, safe and predictable. You will smile at old men with a twinkle in their eyes telling heart-warming anecdotes about when they were in Primary a zillion years ago. You will laugh at the folly of muddle-headed home teachers and the fun apostles can have intimidating them. There may be a catch in your throat as a speaker’s voice breaks in the retelling of a story filled with the wisdom of those who were once his elders and betters.

What you will struggle to find is a reason to rush out and tell anybody about it. If asked about your marathon conference weekend you will search your memory in vain for that weighty nugget of insight you know would be bound to impress your non-Mormon friends; if only you could recall…

Your heart will sink as you hear the especially thick conference edition of the Ensign magazine dropping on your doormat, and wonder if its some sort of test that, having listened to, you now must read those same inane pep-talks you thought were behind you for another six months at least. You wonder if anybody does read the conference Ensign.

That, at any rate, was my experience as I listened to the priesthood session of the conference.

Good ‘ol Boys

The session was typically avuncular, good ‘ol boys chewing the fat and putting the world to rights, the audience, appropriately suited and booted, awed to be invited to sit on the porch with the big guys, nodding sagely and agreeing eagerly, laughing in all the right places, sharing knowing looks and aping their ‘betters.’

Thomas S Monson was last to speak, sitting sagely as five men took their turn at the podium to present their credentials and give another little turn on the screw that bears down on every faithful priesthood holder, reminding them of their duties, urging them to achievement, setting ever higher goals and informing them that “life is a test!” (Dieter Uchtdorf)

You could almost hear the younger generation fidget in their seats, anxious to get out and get the job done, while the older men, who have been here before so many times, sucked air through their teeth, secretly praying, “How long, oh Lord, how long?”

The Mormon prophet spoke about Home Teaching, a worthy church programme in which every family gets a monthly visit from priesthood holders. The message was, “A home teacher is a friend.”

Anecdotes amply illustrated the right and wrong ways to go about the task, from the home teacher turning up unannounced to be confronted with three apostles and their wives ‘visiting’ in one of their homes, to the man who turned up at the prophet’s home alone to confess that he had only made the visit so he could tick it off his list. These guys always seem to have the best stories.

The message is summed up using the example of Jesus, the Good Shepherd, “Brethren, as the priesthood of God we have a shepherding responsibility. The wisdom of the Lord has provided guidelines whereby we might be shepherds to the families of the Church”

The problem is that, whatever the vehicle, however sincere the sentiment, worthy the cause, or great the sacrifice it is the gospel of Joseph these men bring and not that of Jesus. “Oh, but Mike, isn’t service part and parcel of the gospel?” Well, yeeesss…but….let me explain.

Henry B Eyring, speaking of “overburdened priesthood holders,” used a biblical illustration. “It is a parable for overloaded priesthood holders.” he insists. “We sometimes call it the story of the good Samaritan. But it is really the story for a great priesthood bearer in these busy, difficult last days.” He goes on, “Just remember that you are the Samaritan and not the priest or the Levite who passed by the wounded man.”

The irony here, of course, is that the Samaritan is not a priesthood holder. Indeed, it is the priest and the Levite who pass by on the other side and, like those priests and Levites of Jesus’ time, Mormons make much of their position and authority. It is Mormons who, like the priest and Levite, claim exclusive access to truth and authority. It is they who are rejected by Jesus, and the Samaritan, the one regarded as apostate, who is the exemplar in the story.

The emphasis on duty would have suited the priest and Levite to the ground but Jesus’ emphasis was on the spontaneous, sacrificial act of a stranger and outcast as an example of true, selfless service.

Dieter Uchtdorf insisted, “life is a test!” and urged men to positive thinking and goal setting. “You are stronger than you realise,” he assures them, “you are more capable than you imagine; you can do it…Brethren, our destiny is not determined by the number of times we stumble but by the number of times we rise up, dust ourselves off, and move forward.”

As he spoke, the words of William Ernest Henley’s Invictus echoed in my mind:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul…

…It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll.
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Is this the good news of Jesus Christ? I can do it? My fate is in my hands? The message of the New Testament is clear:

“And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience–among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind.
But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace you have been saved– and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus.
For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them…” (Eph 2:1-10)

We were dead, God made us alive in Christ. We were not capable, we were dead. Christ died because we can’t do it. We now walk in good works, not because we are capable but because we are God’s workmanship, “Created in Christ Jesus for good works…”

[Note to any Mormons reading this: Christians believe in good works. Christians do good works. You see us do them all the time, sometimes you do them alongside us and report on it in your publications and at your conferences. So stop peddling the lie that Christians are somehow antinomian, lazy, sitting light to our duties and responsibilities.]

Randy D Funk insisted that we receive strength by proving ourselves worthy and obeying the commandments, quoting Doctrine and Covenants 112:22:

“Inasmuch as [which means the promise will be fulfilled if] they [meaning the missionaries who are sent] shall [1] humble themselves before me, and [2] abide in my word, and [3] hearken to the voice of my Spirit.”

He goes on, “The Lord’s promises are clear. In order to have the spiritual power necessary to open the door of the kingdom of God in the nation to which you are sent, you must be humble and obedient and have the ability to hear and follow the Spirit. These three attributes are closely interrelated. If you are humble, you will want to be obedient. If you are obedient, you will feel the Spirit.”

Certainly, the Bible teaches us the discipline of discipleship but, while Mormons “strive to be worthy to return to Heavenly Father,” a Christian knows he is already accepted by God through Christ (Romans 8:1; Hebrews 4:14-16) and it is the new nature, what the Christian has become and is becoming that is the motivation to obedience and spiritual growth.

Gérald Caussé confirmed a suspicion for me because, like Dieter Uchtdorf, he seemed warmer, more accessible, his message more sympathetic and appealing. Of course, both men are European and the difference in culture shows. The unremitting demands of Mormonism are very much the product of the burgeoning, can-do America of the past 150 years. European history, longer, bloodier, more mature has, I suggest, produced a more nuanced approach to life. I wonder what this bodes for the future of Mormonism.

Two things stood out for me and they are not insignificant. The first is his handling of the familiar doctrine of Abraham being the father of the faithful, making all who trust in Christ children of Abraham and heirs of the promises made to Abraham. For Christians this is explained by Paul in Romans 4.

The difference here is that he puts this explicit gospel promise into the story and time of Abraham, quoting Abraham 2:10 from the discredited Book of Abraham. “God promised Abraham that ‘as many as receive this Gospel shall be called after [his] name, and shall be accounted [his] seed, and shall rise up and bless [him], as their father.’” Of course, Mormonism is full of such anachronisms and we shouldn’t be surprised but here Mormons are claiming exclusively to themselves those same promises; “As members of the Church, we are admitted into the house of Israel.”

Where Paul declares this promise to be for the faithful in Christ, Mormonism teaches that church membership and faithfulness qualifies them, keeping “the law of the gospel;” an oxymoron if ever there was one. Paul clearly precludes any idea of winning that place “according to the flesh,” and goes on to make plain:

“For if it is to the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring…to the one who shares the faith of Abraham…” (Romans 4:14-16)

L Tom Perry took us back some 80 years to his last days in the Primary organisation of the church. He proved his mettle by confidently handling the thirteen Articles of Faith of the Mormon Church, a tribute, he insists, to his Primary teacher, but…

Where God himself declares, “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god…Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.” (Isaiah 44:6-8)

L Tom Perry insists: We learn from the first article of faith that the Godhead is three personages: God the Father, Jesus the Christ, and the Holy Ghost. Three gods.

Where the Bible states, “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.” (1 Corinthians 15:22) In other words, you are either “in” Adam, or “in” Christ.

L Tom Perry states: The second article teaches us that we are responsible for our own actions on earth. In other words, you we are either good or bad people.

Where the Bible teaches, “…if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.” (Romans 10:9-10)

L Tom Perry says: The third gives a vision of the Saviour’s mission for the salvation of Father in Heaven’s children. The third Article of Faith teaches a salvation not by faith and confession but by obedience and ritual; “by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.” The next three articles, likewise, teach laws, ordinances, priesthoods, hierarchies. There are, of course, aspirational articles of faith – notably the thirteenth – and very commendable they are but…

Mormonism isn’t “The Old, Old Story”

When I became a Christian I was astonished, and not a little embarrassed, to find that the old, old story I had so long rejected, reviled and ridiculed as simplistic, easy-believism was actually the true story of salvation – by grace, through faith, in Christ.

The hardest thing about being a Christian is not the weight of duty, the busyness of church involvement, the call to sacrifice, or the responsibilities of leadership. The hardest thing is coming to that place at the foot of the cross and confessing we can’t do it, that all our best efforts count for nothing before a perfectly holy and righteous God. That, far from being able we are poor and needy, helpless and defiled, dead in sin and in need of a Saviour. That is not the story of Mormonism, it is the story of Christians saved, at last, not by works so that no one can boast (Ephesians 2:8-9)

Tell me the old, old story,
  Of unseen things above,
Of Jesus and His glory,
  Of Jesus and His love;
Tell me the story simply,
  As to a little child,
For I am weak and weary,
  And helpless and defiled.

 

Tell me the story slowly,
  That I may take it in—
That wonderful redemption,
  God’s remedy for sin;
Tell me the story often,
  For I forget so soon,
The “early dew” of morning
  Has passed away at noon.

 

Tell me the story softly,
  With earnest tones and grave;
Remember I’m the sinner
  Whom Jesus came to save;
Tell me the story always,
  If you would really be,
In any time of trouble,
  A comforter to me.

 

Tell me the same old story,
  When you have cause to fear
That this world’s empty glory
  Is costing me too dear;
And when the Lord’s bright glory
  Is dawning on my soul,
Tell me the old, old story:
  “Christ Jesus makes thee whole.”

 

Tell me the old, old story,
Tell me the old, old story,
Tell me the old, old story,
    Of Jesus and His love.
Source: http://www.hymnal.net/hymn.php/h/1075#ixzz2hE4yn8z9

Lorenzo Snow–18 Church Leadership and Selfless Service, by Mike Thomas

This month’s chapter is hard to critique and that is no bad thing. There is no spite in what we are doing here, we don’t find fault for the sake of it. The truth is the truth whoever speaks it and a call to selfless service is no bad thing. There is much here to be commended.

There is the call to rejoice in seeing others prosper in ministry (p 217); the reminder that leaders serve a greater good and the good of others (p218); the call to be sacrificial in service (p.219); to appreciate and nurture the gifts of others (p 220) and to lead by example (p 221);

Of course, it does depend on who you are serving. Selfless service to false gods is as much sin as selfishness in service to the true God. It is as wrong to be a Hananiah (Jeremiah 28) as a Diosphenes (3 John 9-10) and I believe this ministry, among many others, has shown over time that Mormonism does not stand up to scrutiny in its claims to having Christian credentials – and the apostle John explains that we are to love “in the truth” (3 Jn.1-4)

Testing the Prophets

True prophets correctly understand and interpret Scripture and I question this “prophet’s” understanding and application of Jesus’ words in John’s gospel. This is really important because if a prophet does not speak according to God’s established word he is not God’s prophet. Lets take a closer look at John’s text and how Lorenzo Snow uses it. He writes (p 218):

“Let every man who stands in an official station, on whom God has bestowed his holy and divine priesthood* think of what the Savior said to the Twelve Apostles just before he went into the presence of his Father—“Feed my sheep.” [John 21:16–17.] And he continued to say this until his apostles felt sorrowful that he should continue to call upon them in this manner. But said he—“Feed my sheep.” That is, “Go forth with your whole heart, be devoted wholly to my cause. These people in the world are my brethren and sisters. My feelings are exercised towards them. Take care of my people. Feed my flock. Go forth and preach the gospel. I will reward you for all your sacrifices. Do not think that you can make too great a sacrifice in accomplishing this work.” He called upon them in the fervor of his heart to do this work.”

Firstly, where Snow has Jesus having this conversation with the twelve, John clearly tells us it was a conversation with Peter, “When they had finished eating. Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, Son of John, do you truly love me more than these?’” (Jn.21:15) “These” are the other apostles. Jesus is either asking, “do you love me more than you love these men,” or, “do you love me more than these men love me?” Either way, he is not talking to the disciples but to Peter about them.

There is an intimacy here rather like the one we find between Jesus and “the disciple Jesus loved” (Jn.13:23-26). While it is true the others might have overheard, much as we “overhear” today through Scripture, nevertheless this is a private conversation with a quite different purpose to that given it by Lorenzo Snow.

Restoration

The familiar teaching tells of Jesus restoring Peter after Peter’s previous betrayal of his Saviour. You will recall how Jesus had prophesied, “You will all fall away,” (Mk.14:27) Brash Peter loudly protested, “Even if all fall away, I will not…Even if I have to die with you I will never disown you.” (Mk.14:29 & 31)

Jesus answered him, “I tell you the truth, today – yes, tonight – before the cock crows twice you yourself will disown me three times.” (Mk.14:30) And we know Peter disowned Jesus, as prophesied. (Mk.14:66-72) Jesus’ conversation with Peter by the sea shore repeated the charge to “feed my sheep” three times, just as Peter had denied him three times. This was a restoration to fellowship and mission of a fallen disciple. It demonstrates the incredible grace of Jesus that he should so receive his betrayer again. But something else is going on here too.

Condescension

Three times Jesus asks, “Simon, son of John, do you love me…?” The Greek word for love Jesus uses the first two times is different from the word he uses the third time. You can see the difference in English in the New International Version if you know to look for it.

“When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon, son of John, do you truly love me more than these?’

‘Yes, Lord,’ he said, ‘You know that I love you.’

Jesus said, ‘Feed my lambs.’

Again Jesus said, ‘Simon, son of John, do you truly love me?’

He answered, ‘Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.’

Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.;

The third time he said to him, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me?’

Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him a third time, ‘Do you love me?’  He said, ‘Lord you know all things; you know that I love you.’”

Jesus said, ‘Feed my sheep.’”

Did you see it?

“Do you truly love me?”

“Do you truly love me?”

Do you love me?”

The Greek in the first two instances is agape, a word that denotes unconditional love, a love we will to give, obedient, God’s love. Peter’s answer uses the more prosaic phileo meaning spontaneous, romantic love, fondness, the product of emotion rather than an act of the will.

“Peter, do you agape me?”

“Yes, Lord, you know I phileo you.”

The third time Jesus comes down to Peter’s level, asking, “Peter, do you phileo me?” to which Peter replies, “Yes, Lord, you know I phileo you?”

Here is the love Jesus required, and here is the love of which Peter was capable, and here is Jesus condescending to accept what is offered no matter its inadequacy. The message here is one of grace in restoring Peter and infinite patience and condescension in meeting the apostle where he is. This is our God, meeting us in our inadequacy and need.

The example of service is here in the text but this is no didactic from which we take instruction on leadership, no self-help formula, but a story illustrating the intimacy we, fallen sinners, can have with the Saviour because of his amazing condescension and grace. The leadership lesson comes from the confidence that knowledge of his grace gives us, and from imitating him as we deal with others as much in need of grace as we are.

Studies such as this demonstrate the huge gulf between the Mormon Church and the Christian Church. Not only does Mormonism misunderstand Christian doctrine, but Mormonism derives from Scripture instruction that departs dramatically from what would be emphasised in a Christian Church. What is deceptive is that a chapter on selfless service sounds so right that many would not think to question it.

This prophet represents an opportunity lost to speak of grace and one has to question his credentials as he so mishandles a familiar and beloved portion of the Bible.

*Gary wrote last time about priesthood and how Mormons understand it compared with what the Bible has to say: Priesthood – ‘for the Salvation of the Human Family’ It is well worth your time to read it.