Lorenzo Snow Manual review, Chapter 23, The Prophet Joseph Smith by Stephen Livings

The chapter I have been assigned to review is something of a gift really.  The title and content of this chapter go to the heart of what most mainstream Christians would say is one of their main bones of contention when addressing the beliefs and claims of Mormonism, namely the LDS church’s emphasis on Joseph Smith.  As an indication of the content of this chapter, there are 41 instances of the name ‘Smith’ and only one mention of the name ‘Jesus’, and even that is in the context of the story of his alleged appearance to Joseph Smith.  And here was I, thinking that I was reviewing a chapter of teaching material from the church that claims to have been established in order to restore the true gospel of Jesus Christ; the real, authentic Christianity.  Well, we don’t see too much of Jesus here.

There are, then, many avenues I could choose to go down in examining the remarkable claims made about the character and life of Joseph Smith in this chapter.  I will begin with this quote: “God had called him to deliver the poor and honest-hearted of all nations from their spiritual and temporal thralldom [bondage].”  For a couple of reasons, such a statement goes to the heart of Mormonism.  Firstly, there is the clear suggestion that, until the ‘calling’ of Joseph Smith to the role God had supposedly assigned him, people were labouring in spiritual bondage (i.e. there was a need for a ‘restoration’ of truth).  This implies that there was a need for the teachings of Joseph Smith because what Christian believers had been thus far treating as gospel was somehow insufficient or false.  Secondly, I would suggest that this quotation is verging on blasphemy since it is suggesting that God chose Joseph Smith to ‘deliver’ or ‘save’ people from spiritual bondage.  I think that we all know that this was the mission of Jesus, not Joseph Smith!

The second statement which struck me as I read through this chapter was this, “As I looked upon him [that first time] and listened, I thought to myself that a man bearing such a wonderful testimony as he did, and having such a countenance as he possessed, could hardly be a false prophet”.  It seems quite telling to me that whoever has compiled and authorised the content of this teaching manual has decided that this comment from Lorenzo Snow is worthy of inclusion.  I say this because the above quote shows that Lorenzo Snow decided that Joseph Smith must have been who he said he was on the basis of his having a ‘wonderful testimony’ and a ‘countenance’ that left an impression on him.  This is very much in line with the LDS way of establishing truth, namely impressions or feelings that what they are hearing is right, rather than checking if what is being taught is in line with the Jesus of the Bible.

In the following section, some very bold comments are made regarding the character of Joseph Smith.  Here is a flavour of that: “There never was a man that possessed a higher degree of integrity and more devotedness to the interest of mankind than the Prophet Joseph Smith.  I knew Joseph Smith to be an honest man, a man of truth, honor and fidelity, willing to sacrifice everything he possessed, even life itself, as a testimony to the heavens and the world that he had borne the truth to the human family.”  Why the need to create such an outstanding impression of Joseph Smith’s integrity?  Any student of the Bible can tell you that God often chose people with major flaws in their character.  One need only look at the lives of people such as David and Moses, as well as the people Jesus drew to him, to know that God doesn’t call the people who have already proved that they are ‘worthy’.  Besides, the claims made here about Joseph Smith’s character stand in direct opposition to many of the things known about him.  Mormon apologists will even acknowledge these flaws as a sign that Joseph Smith was only human after all.  So why the bold claims made officially here?  They do not stand up.  Here are some reasons why I say this.

• Joseph Smith ‘married’ himself to the wives of other men, as well as to very young girls.
• He publicly lied about practising polygamy.  “What a thing it is for a man to be accused of committing adultery, and having seven wives, when I can only find one. I am the same man, and as innocent as I was fourteen years ago; and I can prove them all perjerurs.”
• Joseph Smith also claimed to have done more than Jesus ever did in terms of holding a group of followers together: “I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him; but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet.”
• Joseph Smith claimed that he had translated some Egyptian papyri that contained writings by Abraham’s own hand into English, when in fact they were not even from the same era as Abraham and were later discredited by all the Egyptologists who looked at the work.
• When the truth was published that Joseph Smith had been claiming to his followers that he had received a revelation that contained a doctrine of plural marriage in the ‘Nauvoo Expositor’, Joseph Smith’s response was to have the publication’s printing press destroyed, ultimately leading to Smith’s imprisonment and eventual killing.

I contend that these actions are not those of a man with the highest degree of integrity and devotedness to the interest of mankind.

Much is made in this chapter of how people felt in the presence of Joseph Smith.  For example: “never yet have I met another person in whose company I felt the peculiar and powerful influence that I felt while in the presence of the Prophet Joseph Smith. It was due to the great portion of the Spirit of God that he possessed, merely the shake of his hand would cause a person to become filled with this influence, and any sensitive nature would know that he was shaking the hand of an extraordinary person.”  Why such attention on one individual?  The whole chapter is concerned with the building up of the image of Joseph Smith and not with drawing people towards their Saviour.  Mormons do claim to be Christians after all (and actually the only fully authentic ones at that!)

If the point was not already made clearly enough, then the sub-heading to the final section of the chapter sums it up: “Each of us can gain a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the gospel was restored through him.”  If the LDS church is Christian, then surely a devotion and submission to Jesus as Lord and Saviour is what counts.  The idea of then also ‘gaining a testimony that Joseph Smith was a prophet’ seems utterly superfluous.  What would be the need for a true and devoted follower of Christ to gain such a testimony?  This could not add anything to knowing, and being known by, the Lord.  Do I need to gain a testimony that Isaiah was a true prophet?  Do I need to gain a testimony that God spoke to Moses?  Certainly, the Mormon missionaries would not expect you to, so why is this then the case for Joseph Smith?

The chapter continues and expands on what this testimony actually means: “What is the nature of our testimony? It is this: That this is the dispensation of the fulness of times; that the angel that John the Revelator saw flying through the midst of heaven having the everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth, and to every nation, and kindred and tongue and people—that that angel has made his appearance and restored the Gospel to the earth, Joseph Smith being the instrument through which the restoration was effected”  Yet any close examination of the gospel contained in the New Testament alongside the ‘gospel’ of Mormonism will conclude that we are looking at two different sets of teachings.  There is one which frees people from the consequences of sin through Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross, and the other which demands unfailing compliance with a religious structure and system that leaves the grace of Jesus out of the picture.

The chapter closes by emphasising the importance of having an ‘individual knowledge’ of Joseph Smith being a true prophet.  Again, we see that what is crucial throughout this chapter is, sadly, an acceptance of the claims that Joseph Smith made about himself, rather than an understanding and acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Saviour.  For Mormons, the focus of attention and faith is in the actions of Joseph Smith, not Jesus.

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

Lorenzo Snow Manual, Chapter 19 – Missionary Work – ‘To Reach Every Human Heart’, by Gary Carter

Nearly every religion on the earth seeks to add numbers to its flocks. Of the major religions that can be considered ‘global’, only Hinduism does not have proselytizing at its core. It is therefore no surprise that missionary activities are considered of great importance to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints as seen here in chapter 19 of the Teachings of Lorenzo Snow. Every religion that has its roots in Christianity, such as Christadelphians and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormonism take inspiration from the Great Commission of Matthew 28-18:20 where Jesus command his followers to take his message to the ends of the earth. Christianity would be hard pressed to argue against the zeal and biblical principles that underpin the evangelism of these ‘sects’ given that these principles are the same for Christianity and that Christian evangelism should be undertaken with great zeal, even if it is done in a different manner. When investigating this chapter and Snow’s theology of mission, this use of the Great Commission as a fundamental principle presents some different challenges.

Over the review of this book, we have seen how Snow wraps the theology of Mormonism in the theology of Christianity, making it very difficult to distinguish between the two, with exceptions being seen in declarations such as ‘as man now is, God was once: as God now is, man may be’. This chapter is a prime example of this recurring problem. Snow’s theology seems so ‘orthodox’ that it is very difficult to examine the differences between the two. The self-sacrifice of mission is something that would not be denied by Mormonism or Christianity. Its importance wouldn’t be denied and whilst the Mormon mission system is rather formal, missionary networks are positive things. We shall be investigating the theme of mission in Mormonism with a focus on looking at the Mormon scriptures. We shall also investigate some of the missionary motivations within Snow’s thoughts on mission and what we can learn in terms of differences and what to avoid.

 

When discussing this topic, it is important to begin with one of the most important verses of Scripture:

Then Jesus came to them and said, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.’ (Matthew 28:18-20)

These verses are very helpful in understanding the Christian scriptural foundations for evangelism and mission. These verses are also very helpful in understanding the Mormon approach to evangelism and mission. During our introduction, it was acknowledged that on the surface, there does seem to very little difference between the two positions. I believe that one of the main differences is rooted in what can be termed as heart attitude. We can find a telling paragraph on page 227 of Snow’s work. In this paragraph, Snow advocates that in terms of mission by Mormons, Mormons should ‘go and make friends among the individuals by whom you are surrounded’. This is not something that Christianity would disagree with. One should be missional in the community you live in.

The interesting section comes straight after when Snow argues that one could also select a friend and test him out for mission. There is nothing wrong with caring for a friend and wanting them to come to salvation, especially if one is incredibly close to that friend. This passage could be read though as something that the person being evangelized to could consider sinister. If somebody is only friend with you so that you can be evangelized to, does that mean that they like you or like that you can be evangelized to. Questions like that prove to be very damaging to evangelism and can leave the impression that Mormons may not have genuine intentions. Whilst Snow’s arguments that one should accept when evangelism isn’t going anywhere and stop pestering those who are not interesting are valid and something Christians would agree with, that does not necessarily mean that the friendship ends, something that does happen all too often with interactions with full time Mormon missionaries (this comment is one based on the experience of myself and friends in a particular part of the United Kingdom.

I accept that this isn’t always the case in with Mormons serving on missions). It is also important to recognize that this is something that occurs within every religion’s evangelism including within Christianity’s. The difference seems to be that Snow has institutionalized the practice that can be seen as sinister. If that is the heart attitude of Mormon evangelism, a heart attitude that can seem ‘fake’, then we must wonder if Mormon evangelism is about people or about numbers of converts. I wish to state again that this phenomenon is not unique to Mormonism. To argue such would be factually wrong. The point that is being made is that Snow seems to support the institutionalization of such a practice.

 

Another point of great interest is the following quote from Doctrines and Covenants:

Yea, a supper of the house of the Lord, well prepared, unto which all nations shall be invited. First, the rich and the learned, the wise and the noble; And after that cometh the day of my power; then shall the poor, the lame, and the blind, and the deaf, come in unto the marriage of the Lamb, and partake of the supper of the Lord, prepared for the great day to come. Behold, I, the Lord, have spoken it. (D&C 58:9-12)

The reason why these verses are interesting is linked to the following verse from 1 Corinthians:

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:

‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.’

 

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling-block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

Brothers and sisters, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. God chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things – and the things that are not – to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God – that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: ‘Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.’ (1 Corinthians 1:18-31)

There is a direct contrast between the 1 Corinthians verses and the Doctrine and Covenants verses. Paul’s emphasis is on the message of the Gospel being succor to the poor and for those who were not of ‘noble birth’. It is foolishness to the wise. Paul quotes the Old Testament in saying that God will ‘destroy the wisdom of the wise’. This is almost in direct contrast to Smith who states that the Lord will call ‘all nations’ to His table starting with ‘the rich and learned, the wise and the noble’. Both statements are unequivocal in their tone and meaning.

There seems to be no possibility that these two statements can be held together under one overall idea. There is no implication in what Smith’s statement that there is a hidden meaning where ‘rich’ actually means ‘poor’ and ‘learned’ means ‘foolishness’ to the world’s eyes. In fact, when we look at the very next verse from D&C 58, we can see that it is the ‘rich and learned’ who will lead the ‘poor, the lame and the blind and the deaf’ into the kingdom of God. This difference of thought between Smith and Paul is crucial in understanding the difference in the theology of evangelism between Mormonism and Christianity. The theology of evangelism from the New Testament, despite some of the interpretations that have been used in Christian theology in the past two millennia, is that Christ has come for the ‘poor and foolish’ and that Christ uses them to shame the rich, the learned and the powerful for their reliance on themselves. In essence, 1 Corinthians shows us a gospel that wants to be evangelized to the poor and has a distinctive focus towards them. The gospel that Smith in D&C 58 presents shows the opposite focus for evangelism.

So what can we conclude? We can conclude that this area is rather grey and murky when trying to consider the differences between Mormonism and Christianity. One cannot criticize the vigour and zeal of Mormon missionaries as Christians are called to serve evangelistically. Often, despite our deep theological differences with Mormonism and the occasional feeling of contempt for them that is felt in Christian circles, Christians should be much more committed to evangelism like the Mormons. Whilst it does feel odd to see some of the evangelism tactics being institutionalized by Snow in this chapter, we must recognize that Christians can do the same thing. The main difference seems to be in the theology of Smith and Paul. They both have very different ‘target demographics’ which are dependent on their interpretation of the Gospel. Paul and the New Testament seem completely at odds with Smith and Doctrine and Covenants. Smith seems to have moved away from the idea of 1 Corinthians of ‘rich and poor’ and ‘wise and foolish’ when it comes to the Gospel. This is another crucial difference between Mormonism and Christianity that we have been able to discern whilst investigating the work of Lorenzo Snow.

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.

Teachings of Lorenzo Snow Manual, Chapter 17 by Gary Carter

Chapter 17 – Priesthood – ‘for the Salvation of the Human Family’

 

As we approach the end of the book, we have seen many trends in Snow’s theology such as specific Mormon theology being wrapped around orthodox Christian theology. This can be seen in our discussions on salvation by works and the Trinity. This trend is still prevalent in chapter 17 but this time we shall be exploring a different topic, priesthood, godliness and the theology of generations and godliness. In terms of priesthood and godliness, we shall be exploring the difference that Snow makes between ‘conferring’ godliness and ‘acquiring’ godliness and the importance within Mormonism of priesthood authority. In terms of generations, we shall be exploring the responsibilities of priesthood with regards to generations past, present and future and what the Bible has to say regarding the topic of generation.

 

On page 212, we find a very interesting couple of sentences:

 

‘We expect in the resurrection to exercise the powers of the priesthood – we can exercise them only in proportion as we secure its righteousness and perfections; these qualifications can be had only as they are sought and obtained, so that in the morning of the resurrection we will possess those acquisitions only which we secured in this world! Godliness cannot be conferred but must be acquired, a fact of which the religious world seems[s] strangely and lamentably unconscious.’

 

What makes this section interesting is this difference that Snow makes between ‘conferred’ and ‘acquired’. These terms are very different when we consider the actions of God and behaving in a godly manner. When a person is conferred with something, the implication is that the person being conferred in essence sits and receives whatever is being conferred upon them. There is no agency on the part of the ‘conferee’. The entire agency is with the ‘conferer’ as the one conferring the gift, in this case godliness. ‘Acquired’ has an entirely inference and meaning. Let us look at an example, when I acquire food; it means that I have worked to earn the money to go and buy the food. In essence, to acquire, one must work for it. Another relevant example, using the referenced section as a guide, would be qualifications. When one acquires a qualification, one has worked towards one and spent the money on course fees. There is work and effort to attain and acquire the qualification. The agency is all with the ‘acquirer’ not the one who ‘confers’ what has been ‘acquired’. When we look at this through the eyes of godliness, Snow is arguing that we can acquire godliness through the ‘proper spiritual qualifications’ not that God confers the godliness on us.

 

There are some New Testament scriptures that may prove helpful in investigating Snow’s argument.

 

 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue: Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; (2 Peter 1:3-6)

Paul, a servant of God, and an apostle of Jesus Christ, according to the faith of God’s elect, and the acknowledging of the truth which is after godliness; In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; (Titus 1:1-2)

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

But thou, O man of God, flee these things; and follow after righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meekness. (1 Timothy 6:11)

The idea that links these verses together is the ‘mystery of godliness’ and that this mystery is something that comes from God himself. It is from God that the gifts of godliness come from God himself. If there is any ‘qualification’, these qualifications flow from God. There are no ‘proper spiritual qualifications’ such as priesthood that to be obtained by humanity in their own strength. Faith alone is the only ‘qualification’ (Titus 1:1-2).

 

The next interesting aspect when we look for unique Mormon theology is the idea of priesthood as a vehicle for the salvation of generations that Snow discusses in this chapter. The particular quotation that we shall be referencing is:

 

‘Upon you rest high and sacred responsibilities, which relate not only to the salvation of this generation, but of many past generations, and many to come’.

 

This idea of salvation for past generations is linked to the idea of baptizing the dead, an idea that we can find in Doctrines and Covenants 128 with links to Joseph Smith’s interpretation of 1 Corinthians 15:29. Mormonism teaches that if a living member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints is baptized by proxy on behalf of somebody who is deceased properly in a temple, then that person can be saved despite his or her death. The title of this chapter therefore is incredibly pertinent. In Mormon theology, priesthood does actually bring salvation for the whole human family as that extends into the past and the deceased. This can be linked with an idea that Bruce McConkie terms as the Patriarchal Chain that binds us all faithful humanity to Adam. By fulfilling the responsibilities that Snow states that all those who are members of the priesthood have towards the past generations, this must include baptisms for the dead to bring them salvation.

 

There are a number of verses from the Bible that raise questions about this doctrine. One particular verse of interest is 1 Timothy 4:18.

 

For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.

 

Not only does this verse state that works (bodily exercise) do not profit us in terms of salvation, but this verse also speaks of the biblical pattern on generations. We can see that the present is mentioned in this verse. We can also see that the future generations are also mentioned. What is not mentioned in this verse is the past and the past generations. This pattern is seen in other biblical texts. An example of this is the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20 when God speaks of punishing to the fourth generation those who indulge in idolatry but blessing of those who worshipped the name of the Lord to the thousandth generation. What is not mentioned is the past and any punishment or blessing for those who have already died. The idea of baptism for the dead and using godliness and godly authority as a way to achieve salvation for the deceased past generations that will not be in the present or the future does not stand side by side with 1 Timothy 4:18 and Exodus 20. It also does not stand with Hebrews 9:27 which states that we shall be judged according to our acceptance of Christ. It also goes against Romans 2:3 which states that we cannot escape the judgment of our God. One could argue that the doctrine of the baptism of the dead is a potential ‘escape’ from the truth of Romans by attempting to change the judgments of God after death.

 

What can we say in conclusion? We can say that we can see two distinctive Mormon doctrines through the medium of the priesthood. We can see that Snow argues that there are certain qualifications needed for godliness, therefore salvation and these are achieved through holding the priesthood offices. We can also see that it is the responsibility of the priesthood holder to ‘save’ the past generations through the baptism of the dead. What links these two areas together is the act of the human. The human being has to ‘acquire’ the spiritual qualifications for godliness. The human being has to act by baptizing the dead to save those who have already died and met their God. The human actions are emphasized and not the actions of God. This emphasis on the human and not God, something we see repeatedly with Snow, is something that is not in line with the pattern of scripture and where Mormonism and Christianity differ.

Teachings of Lorenzo Snow Manual, Chapter 16 by Gary Carter

Chapter 16 – That We May Become One

This chapter is a perfect example of how deep we have to go sometimes to distinguish the differences between Christianity and Mormonism. Snow is stressing the need for unity within the Saints and there should be no conflict between them. As a theme and a rule for Christian life, this is not something that Christians can disagree with at all. Matthew 18:15-20 is a clear example of how the Bible sets out clear standards for how to resolve differences between brothers and sisters in faith. This chapter does however point towards substantial differences between Mormonism and Christianity such as the non-Trinitarianism of Mormonism. This chapter also raises other issues such as division between the apostles and whether division is helpful within the church, which shall be explored in this review.

On page 196, Snow makes a very interesting statement regarding the Father and the Son. When Jesus prays for the believers in the Garden, he pleads that the believers are of ‘one’ ‘just as you are in me and I am in you’ (John 17:21). Building on that verse Snow states that:

‘There is something very important in this, and we have got to practice ourselves until we become like the Father and the Son, one in all things’.

This may not seem like a statement of great importance, but when we link the verse itself with other Mormon theology, we can see that this statement is actually very telling. The King James Version of John 17:21 does not mention the terms ‘Father’ or ‘Son’ so Snow has not built this statement on the version of the Bible that the LDS use. Instead this statement reflects the Mormon theology of the Father and the Son. When we investigate the Mormon view of Acts 7 and the stoning of Stephen, we can see that this is the primary text for the Mormon justification of Jesus being a separate god to the Father as expressed in the Pearl of Great Price – Joseph Smith, History 1:17. Bearing this in mind, it is not hard to see how this doctrine has been implanted onto this verse. The changing of terminology from ‘you’ and ‘me’ to ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ may seem innocuous but given the Mormon theology of the separate godship of the Son, it is easy to see that this change could have, and probably has, occurred due to this distinctive heterodox theology

This also leads onto another interesting issue, the lack of any mention of the Holy Spirit in this. To be clear, Mormonism does not teach that the Holy Spirit is not a distinctive ‘godly being’ such as the Father and the Son. McConkie does describe the Holy Spirit as a ‘Personage of Spirit’ who is only in one place at one time and is not manifest (D&C 130:22-23; McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, 1966, 359). This anti-trinitarianism seems to be implicit in this statement. The verse from John does not deny the trinity or make any reference to any distinctive labels of ‘Father’ or ‘Son’. The perfect unity and the perfect unity is in the Trinity, not the Mormon ‘godhead’ but the Trinity. An interesting aside to mention at this point is D&C 20:28 which states that:

Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

The above statement does imply Trinitarian thought within some of the Mormon scriptures. This is interesting when we consider what Snow is saying. Snow is correct in saying the Father and the Son are one in all things but to not include the Spirit not only neglects the three chapters that precede John 17 and the discussion of the advocate but it also neglects the true unity and community as shown in Matthew 28. Snow’s idea of unity for the saints is fundamentally flawed because he neglects the perfect unity that is the foundation of all creation for the Mormon idea of the godhead.

The very next paragraph in page 196 identifies the next issue that we face with Snow’s understanding of unity. Snow argues that:

‘For unless the Apostles and those that believed on them were united, the world could not believe in the mission and purposes of the Saviour’.

This raises some interesting questions about how can humanity can affect the mission of the world but also whether Snow is missing out certain sections of the apostolic ministry and history. One of the key defenses of the Mormon faith is that the apostolic authority was lost after the death of the apostles. Whilst we will not be looking into this in detail, it is important to remember this when we investigate this statement. Galatians 2:12 and Acts 15:7 recounts the disagreement that was had between Paul and James about whether Gentiles and Jews could eat together and how Peter was could in the middle and was making a mess of sitting on the fence. It is fair to say that there was a fair old argument between the three and there were probably some harsh words said. Paul doesn’t really hold back in Galatians about how he felt. This is a clear scriptural sign that there was division within the apostolic community; something that Snow implies should not be the case. The statement implies that the apostolic mission cannot be done if there is division yet it cannot be denied that the work continued and was blessed. Even in the Mormon thought world, the apostolic authority hadn’t been lost yet as the apostles were not dead yet. Snow seems to have completely overlooked this and has also seemed to once again link human efforts to the work of God. The work of God does not stop because of human sin. The Old Testament is full of stories about how the work of God overcame human sinfulness, a perfect example of this is the story of Jonah. To argue that the work of God cannot be done because of human actions limits God. In effect, Snow is saying humanity has power of God, something that is frankly heretical.

Our final point of investigation may seem rather minor in the grand scheme of things, but it does reveal something of the very nature of how Mormonism views debates, argument and disunity in faith. In the section ‘Unity is essential in the Church and in our families’, Snow describes how the quorum of the Twelve is a ‘perfect union’ and the relationship between every branch of the LDS church should also be a ‘perfect union’. This is not a sentiment that I believe to be disingenuous or false on Snow’s part. The flaw with this though is what isn’t said. Snow does talk about not resting day or night until he had union with somebody but there is no description of the ‘hows’. There is always division in any human community; this is a fact of life. Snow’s earlier comments that division will cause us not to be the people of God does overlook, as we discussed earlier, how God sometimes uses our division to bring forth His truth. These sentiments are also unhelpful in dealing with conflict as there are no helpful tools to deal with it. Matthew 18 provides helpful tools to resolve conflict. Unity here is the expected behaviour and if you do not conform for what ever, sometimes justified, reasons then you are not living to the standards that are expected. It would be unhelpful to link this teaching to some of the stories of ‘authoratative’ LDS leadership strategies (e.g. The September Six), but it does suggest that the Mormonism doesn’t allow for some debate and dissention which is unbiblical as the Bible does show us that the Word of God often is clearest at times of dissention.

In conclusion, we can see that our familiar pattern in terms of Mormon thought buried deep with Christian sounding ideas returning in this chapter. Unity within the church is a very Biblical idea and not something that should be mocked or undermined. Snow however does seem to ignore the most perfect unity of the Trinity as well as miss the examples of how God works through division in the Bible which is unfortunate and shows the clear differences between Mormonism and Christianity.

Lorenzo Snow Manual Chapter 15 Faithful, Energetic Service in the Kingdom of God, by Vicky Gilpin

The main question I want to look at in this post is; What did Jesus die for?

I’m particularly picking up on the following statements from Snow p186 of this book.

When the Lord called Abraham He made him certain promises concerning the glory that should come upon him and his posterity, and in these promises we find this remarkable saying: that in him and in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed [see Genesis 22:15–18;

Abraham 2:9–11]. . . . The design of the Lord was to bless not only him and his posterity, but all the families of the earth. . . When Jesus came, He came as a sacrifice not simply in the interest of Israel, or the posterity of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but in the interest of the whole human family, that in Him all men might be blessed, that in Him all men might be saved; and His mission was to make provision by which the whole human family might receive the benefits of the everlasting Gospel, not, as I say, Israel alone, but the whole human race; and not alone those dwelling upon the earth, but those also in the spirit world. . . .

 

So what’s wrong with that statement, after all it says in the Bible…

“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16

There are differing views on exactly what this means. Did Jesus die for the whole world or did he die for those who were his? Whatever your thoughts on this point. Christians agree that the sacrifice Jesus made, the price he paid is only ‘applied to the accounts,’ of those who gratefully accept that sacrifice. I’ve heard the analogy many times of a person receiving a gift, but never opening it. Jesus may have died in our place ( the gift ) but we must receive Him, believe on Him, In order to open the gift.

In LDS Theology Jesus died for all Men, weather they receive Him or not…

Apostle James Talmage said, “The first effect (of the atonement) is to secure to all mankind alike, exemption from the penalty of the fall, thus, providing a plan of General Salvation. The second effect is to open a way for Individual Salvation whereby mankind may secure remission of personal sins. As these sins are the result of individual acts, it is just that forgiveness for them should be conditioned on individual compliance with prescribed requirements — obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel” (A. of F., p. 87).

Pres. Joseph Fielding Smith wrote, “Salvation is twofold: General — that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ — and Individual — that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” (D. of S., Vol. I, p. 134).

So according to LDS theology, Jesus died for everyone. Irrespective of what they have done they can receive ‘Salvation’ or what most Christians refer to as resurrection.

              What does the Bible say About Resurrection?

Daniel 12:2 ESV / 10 helpful votes

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

So everyone will be resurrected but some to shame and everlasting contempt. Not something I’d be too thankful for, not much of a salvation is it! But who is this speaking about, if your LDS you may be thinking, ‘well that’s talking about the apostates and Murderers who will be cast into outer darkness.’ But is it? There are only two options mentioned here, some to eternal life, and some to everlasting shame and contempt. There is no third option listed, no middle ground.

We see this again in Matthew…

Matthew 25:31-34; 41

³¹ “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. ³² All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. ³³ He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left. ³⁴ “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world.

⁴¹ “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.

Two options, Eternal life or eternal fire!

And again…

Matthew 7:13
“Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy^[a] that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.”

Eternal life or eternal destruction. Eternal life, in Mormonism is very significant…

“Those who gain eternal life (exaltation) also gain eternal lives, meaning that in the resurrection they have eternal ‘increase,’ ‘a con- tinuation of the seeds,’ a ‘continuation of the lives.’ Their spirit progeny will ‘continue as innumerable as the stars; or, if ye were to count the sand upon the seashore ye could not number them.’ (D. & C. 131:1-4; 132:19-25, 30, 55.)”  (Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doc- trine, 1966, p. 238. Italics in original). (Brackets from origional text)

“Eternal life means returning to the Lord’s exalted presence and enjoying the privilege of eternal increase…” (BYU Professor Daniel H. Ludlow, A Companion to Your Study of the Doctrine and Covenants 2:267).

But if this is the case, then what did Paul mean when he wrote..

²³ For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. ( Romans6:23 )

Or John when he wrote…

³⁵ The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. ³⁶ Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. ( John 3:35-36 ) (Notice the present tense there.)

 

Are we born into sin?

In Mainstream Christianity it is taught that we are born into sin. Adam being the ‘Head’ of Mankind, his sin affected all of Humanity. We read in Genesis that the result of this was far more than death, but it affected our relationship with the Father, who no longer walked with him in the garden. A curse was laid upon mankind which made everything harder than it could have been for Mankind.

Putting it simply what the LDS Church is teaching is that Jesus paid for ‘the sin of Adam,’ or the effects of the sin of Adam, namely physical death. But the curse that fell upon Mankind was more than physical death but a spiritual death also. Adam and Eve were cast out of the Garden, the close relationship that they had enjoyed with God had been damaged. They were now in sin and that sin would mar their offspring also.

A well known Christian theologian says has this to say on the subject of Inherited sin…

“David says, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me. (Psalm 51:5). Some have mistakenly thought that the sin of David’s Mother is in view here, but this is incorrect, for the entire context has nothing to do with David’s Mother. David is confessing his own personal sin throughout this section. He says:
Have mercy on me, O God…blot out my transgressions. Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity…I know my transgressions….Against you…have I sinned.(Ps 51:1-4)
David is so overwhelmed with the consciousness of his own sin that as he looks back on his life he realises that he was sinful from the beginning. As far back as he can think of himself, he realizes that he has had a sinful nature.” (Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, p496)

Joseph Fielding Smith…

 “It is a false doctrine which prevails in the world that children have to be cleansed from original sin. Those who teach such a doctrine fail to comprehend the nature of the atonement of Jesus Christ. Adam and Eve brought death into the world by partaking of fruit which was forbidden. This act brought death upon them, and their posterity inherited death so that we all have to die some time. To restore mankind to life, the uniting again of the spirit with the body, thus atoning for Adam’s transgression, was the mission of Jesus Christ. He came and paid that debt and through his sacrifice on the cross he has redeemed all from death and has given them the gift of the resurrection. The posterity of Adam in no way what- ever is subject to original sin, and there is no act required of them to cleanse them from such a sin” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 3:16).

The Bible …

Romans 5:12-17

¹² Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men^[a] because all sinned— ¹³ for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.

¹⁵ But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many. ¹⁶ And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification. ¹⁷ For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

First we see here that “sin came into the world through one man.” Here the verse specifically says sin, not death. Paul then goes on to say, “and death through sin.”

What we received through Adam was a nature of Sin this sin then resulted in death. As it says in Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death.

Continuing in our passage, Paul goes on to say that death spread to all men, because all sinned. How did death spread to all men? They inherited the sinful nature through from Adam. They then sinned themselves, thus deserving the wages of sin, death.
(Remember the physical death comes to all no matter what they do, it was part of the curse pronounced over Adam and Eve in the Garden, “…for out of it you were taken for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”(Genesis 3:19) But the death that is spoken of here is not only physical but spiritual.

Verse 14, although speaking of death, again is in the context of people sinning

. ¹⁴ Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, 

 

Verse 17…

 For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man,

but then what was Gods solution to this death?

an ‘abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness.’

This verse speaks of an ‘abundance of Grace’ that is given and a ‘free gift of righteousness.’ But I ask you If what is being spoken of here is a ‘gift of resurrection,’ then why is it referred to as a free ‘gift of righteousness?’

 

What is Righteousness?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/righteousness

right·eous  (rchs)

adj.

1. Morally upright; without guilt or sin: a righteous parishioner.

2. In accordance with virtue or morality: a righteous judgment.

3. Morally justifiable: righteous anger. See Synonyms at moral.

n.

I think most people would agree with this definition, the most appropriate being the first. What Jesus died for, the free Gift to us that he paid for was for us to be ‘Morally upright; without guilt or sin. It is a free gift, that is what it says! Read it again!

¹⁷ For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Jesus did not just pay the price for everyone to be raised from the dead, this is not the gift. This is the Judgement, many will not be particularly thankful for their resurrection on that day. The gift comes to all who would receive it, a free gift of grace and righteousness.

I know as a Christian that I stand righteous before God. I know this not because I am perfect but because I know that Jesus loves me, he died for me, to pay the price of all my guilt and shame. He washed me clean by his blood so that when the Father looks on me he sees not my sin, but the righteousness of Christ covering me.

I welcome your comments or feedback

Teachings of President Lorenzo Snow chapter 12 Tithing

“The law of tithing is one of the most important
ever revealed to man. . . . Through obeying
this law the blessings of prosperity and
success will be given to the Saints.”

Lorenzo Snow

A Revelation

It was in early May 1899, we are told, that president Lorenzo Snow ‘felt prompted to visit the city of St. George and other settlements in southern Utah.’ The president, the story continues, on arriving in St George, received a clear revelation in which the saints were urged to obey the law of tithing:

“The word of the Lord to you is not anything new; it is simply this: The time has now come for every Latter-day Saint, who calculates to be prepared for the future and to hold his feet strong upon a proper foundation, to do the will of the Lord and to pay his tithing in full. That is the word
of the Lord to you, and it will be the word of the Lord to every settlement throughout the land of Zion.”

Snow described this experience, “I never had a more perfect revelation,” he later said, “than [the revelation] I received on this subject of tithing.”

We are further informed, “On July 2, all the General Authorities and representatives from all the stakes and wards in the Church attended a solemn assembly in the Salt Lake Temple, having fasted and prayed in preparation for the meeting. There they unanimously accepted the same resolution [to accept this revelation on tithing].”

Mormonism is founded on the doctrine of continuing revelation and an open canon of Scripture. Why did this revelation not make its way into the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C)?

There are many such instances when claims to have received revelation are not followed by any additions to the increasingly inappropriately described Mormon “open canon.”

On one hand Mormons insist their leaders are prophets and what they say “officially” is binding, on the other hand, when those prophets are quoted – as I am quoting Lorenzo Snow here – Mormons will insist the only truly binding teaching is that contained in the “Standard Works” of the Mormon Church; the Bible, Book of Mormon, D&C and Pearl of Great Price.

Is this word binding if it isn’t between the bindings of official doctrine? This is a troubling issue for both Mormons and those who question Mormon claims. You can read more about it in The Mormon Chapbook

Historical Context

Some historical context will shed light on these developments in Mormon history. In their book, The Mormon Experience, A History of the Latter-day Saints, Leonard J Arrington, (Mormon Church Historian 1972-1982) and Davis Bitton (Assistant Church Historian, 1972-1982) wrote:

“The financial condition of the church throughout the 1890s was desperate. Contributions had dwindled to a trickle due to hard times and fear that donations would end up with the federal government. When escheated church properties (properties that had reverted to the government) were finally returned after statehood, their value had been substantially reduced by mismanagement and the sale of several revenue producing properties. The prolonged depression of the 1890s cut income from church-supported industry, while calls for welfare expenditure increased.

The completion of the four-million-dollar Salt Lake Temple also helped to deplete the church’s resources. The seriousness of of the situation at the end of 1896 was described in a journal entry by Wilford Woodruff: ‘The presidency of the church are so overwhelmed in financial matters it seems as though we shall never live to get through with it unless the Lord opens the way in a marvellous manner. It looks as though we shall never pay our debts.”’”

In response to Mormon intransigence with regard polygamy the Edmunds-Tucker Act, 1887, allowed the government to effectively dissolve the Mormon Church as a legal entity and required the church to forfeit to the government all property in excess of fifty thousand dollars.

The dire financial straits of the church were the direct consequence of a leadership that thought itself above the law in respect to polygamy. It was this that forced the hand of church president Wilford Woodruff, in 1890, to issue the Manifesto abandoning polygamy, and the Manifesto that led to the return to the church of seriously mismanaged and depleted properties.

The church was on the brink of bankruptcy and the leaders who got Mormons into these shocking circumstances were now insisting Mormons had a duty to get themselves out of it.

The United States was already in the grip of a huge depression, begun in 1893, in which hundreds of banks closed and thousands of businesses went under. The unemployment rate in Pennsylvania hit 25%, in New York 35%, and in Michigan 43%. Soup kitchens were opened to feed the destitute and some women, it is reported, turned to prostitution to feed their children.

For Mormons, added to this was the burden of church property being confiscated and tithes drying up for fear the little the saints were able to give might end up in the coffers of the federal government.

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.

Tithing

I want to pick up on three Lorenzo Snow quotes from the book:

“If we will keep that law . . . the land will be sanctified, and we shall be counted worthy to receive the blessings of the Lord and to be sustained and supported in our financial affairs and in everything we do, temporal as well as spiritual.”

“Here is a law revealed specially for our protection and safety, as well as for our advancement in the path of righteousness and holiness; a law by which the land on which we dwell might become sanctified; a law by which Zion might be built up and established never more to be thrown down or removed out of her place by wicked and ungodly men.”

“The temporal salvation of this Church . . . depends upon obedience to this law.”

The above quotes chime with everything written in the Old Testament regarding tithing. It is a law that must be obeyed by the people of God, obedience to which will bring temporal blessing in the land to a specific people group. The problem is it isn’t binding on Christians under the New Covenant (Testament means Covenant)

Tithing didn’t originate with the Mosaic Law. Nor was it peculiar to the Hebrews but was widely practiced among ancient peoples and civilisations. When Abraham paid a tithe to Melchizedek, king of Salem, it was not in obedience to a specific command from God. It was a tithe of the spoils of war, a voluntary act of devotion to God in thanks for the rescue of his nephew Lot (Gen.14: 17-20, c.f. 28:20-22, Jacob does something similar)

Lets take a quick tour through the requirements of the Old Covenant (Testament) regarding tithing and its purpose.

Tithing in the Old Testament

The tithe was of the land, its seed and fruit, and of animals  and it related to service in the sanctuary. Given its nature it was almost certainly paid annually. Every year after the land had been harvested, the people would bring to the priests the tithe of their harvest and increase in herds and flocks – Lev.27:30-33

Tithes were given to support the Levites. Because the Levites had no inheritance in the land of Canaan, like the other tribes, God provided for their support through the tithes of the rest of Israel – Numbers 18:21-24

There was a second tithe to provide for the religious feasts and festivals of Israel – Deuteronomy 14:22-27

Every three years the people of the town were to bring a tithe of their crops and herds and gather them together to take care of the poor of their towns including the alien, orphan and widow. There is debate over whether this is a third tithe or the second tithe put to a different use – Deuteronomy 14:28-29

These tithes were lawfully required and not voluntary – Nehemiah 12:44

Malachi 3:8-12 – This is the familiar text used by Mormon to justify their quid pro quo approach to tithing. Lets see what it actually says:

You are cursed with a curse, for you are robbing Me, the whole nation of you! Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, so that there may be food in My house, and test Me now in this, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open for you the windows of heaven, and pour out for you a blessing until it overflows. Then I will rebuke the devourer for you, so that it may not destroy the fruits of the ground; nor will your vine in the field cast its grapes, says the Lord of hosts. And all the nations will call you blessed, for you shall be a delightful land, says the Lord of hosts.”

Tithes are the annual, or triennial first fruits of crops and animals. Offerings are the grain and animal sacrifices brought to the temples. If we are to tithe are we to make animal sacrifices? The curse for disobedience was a curse on crops, fields and stock, the very things in which they had sinned in not tithing, “…because you would not obey the Lord your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you” (Deut. 28:18, 23-24, 38-40, 45)

The “storehouses” referred to were chambers in the temple set apart and designated to hold the tithes of the people for the support of the priests (Nehemiah 12:44) It is these that would be filled until they overflowed when Israel obeyed. The “pests” (devourer AV) who would not destroy their crops was the locust (Deut.28:38) Israel’s obedience would result in abundant crops, rain and increase in herds and flocks. Tithe barns can still be seen around Europe. The one on the left is in Great Coxwell, Oxfordshire, England. We are no longer under that system but this is the system prescribed by Mormonism.

I mentioned a quid pro quo approach for Mormons. Mormonism teaches that our obedience binds God to bless us, “I, the Lord, am bound when ye do what I say; but when ye do not what I say, ye have no promise.” (D&C 82:10)

This is the lens through which they view the law of tithing: If you obey you are bound to prosper. You will sometimes hear Mormons insist that, “Those who leave the church never prosper,” and this it is that stands behind their salvation by works. The Mormon message is a message of “progression” not salvation, and that progression depends not on the finished work of Christ at Calvary but on their strict obedience to the Mormon Plan of Salvation, including the law of tithing.

Giving in the New Testament

There are only four New Testament passages in which tithing is mentioned:

(Matthew 23:23, c.f. Luke 11:42) This text is talking about tithing herbs under the Old Covenant. The New Covenant was not yet inaugurated until Jesus’ death (Lk.22.20; Heb. 7:12)

Luke 18:12: This is the parable about the Pharisee and the tax-collector.  The words, “I pay tithes of all that I get,” are put into the mouth of the self-righteous Pharisee who thinks himself justified before God on the basis of his works.  Some people are in Scripture as examples, others as warnings. Is this Old Covenant warning our example for Christians living under the New Covenant!

Hebrews 7:1-10 This passage is not about tithing but about the superiority of the priesthood of Christ over the Levitical priesthood, even as Melchizedek was superior to Levi who, being in the loins of Abraham, paid tithes to the priest/king. Even so, the New Covenant is superior to the Old.

So how is giving understood under the New Covenant?

There is no percentage prescribed but, like Abraham and Jacob, Christians are to give voluntarily, “just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver” (2 Cor. 9:7).

1 Corinthians 16:1-2: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I directed the churches of Galatia, so do you also.  On the first day of every week let each one of you put aside and save, as he may prosper, that no collections be made when I come.”

Here saints are urged to give proportionately as they have prospered.

Acts 11:27-39 “Now at this time some prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.  And one of them named Agabus stood up and began to indicate by the Spirit that there would certainly be a great famine all over the world. And this took place in the reign of Claudius.  And in the proportion that any of the disciples had means, each of them determined to send a contribution for the relief of the brethren living in Judea.”

Here we see people giving as they are able. Those with more give more, those with less give less.

2 Corinthians 9:7: “Let each one do just as he has purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or under compulsion; for God loves a cheerful giver.”

Here we are urged to be faithful to give what we have purposed in our hearts. When we see a need we meet it as best we can.

The Needs of Believers

Acts 2:44-45:  “And all those who had believed were together, and had all things in common; and they began selling their property and possessions, and were sharing them with all, as anyone might have need.”

1 John 3:17: “But whoever has the world’s goods, and beholds his brother in need and closes his heart against him, how does the love of God abide in him?  Little children, let us not love with word or with tongue, but in deed and truth.”

Galatians 6:9-10: “And let us not lose heart in doing good, for in due time we shall reap if we do not grow weary.  So then, while we have opportunity, let us do good to all men, and especially to those who are of the household of the faith.”

The Needs of Christian Workers

1 Timothy 5:17-18: “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honour, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.  For the Scripture says, ‘You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing’ and ‘The labourer is worthy of his wages.’”

1 Cor.9:11-14: “If we sowed spiritual things in you, is it too much if we should reap material things from you?  If others share the right over you, do we not more? Nevertheless, we did not use this right, but we endure all things, that we may cause no hindrance to the gospel of Christ.  Do you not know that those who perform sacred services eat the food of the temple, and those who attend regularly to the altar have their share with the altar?  So also the Lord directed those who proclaim the gospel to get their living from the gospel.”

So much for the much vaunted Mormon lay clergy. Mormons will often sneer at the idea of a paid clergy, suggesting some sort of compromise with mammon, but the Bible insists “the labourer is worthy of his hire.”

The Needs of the Poor

Luke 12:33-34: “Sell your possessions and give to charity; make yourselves purses which do not wear out, an unfailing treasure in heaven, where no thief comes near, nor moth destroys.  For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

Ephesians 4:28: “Let him who steals steal no longer; but rather let him labour, performing with his own hands what is good, in order that he may have something to share with him who has need.”

James 1:27: “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

New Covenant giving is to meet people’s needs, it is done as we are able, as we have determined in our hearts. It is to be anonymous (Mt.6:1-4); Voluntary (2 Cor.9:7); Expecting and trusting in God’s blessing and provision (2 Cor.9:6); Cheerfully (2 Cor.9:7); sacrificially (Mk.12:41-44) and for the right motives, i.e. following Christ’s example (2 Cor.8:9) and obeying his command of love (Jn.15:12-13)

Just as Christ’s priesthood is greater than the abolished Levitical priesthood, as the New Covenant is greater than the Old Covenant, so the new way of giving is more heartfelt and demanding than the old. The old way was easily fulfilled by the measuring out of stock and crops, the new is measured by the heart and sacrifice of the giver.

Here is the tragedy: Mormons follow the way of the Old Covenant, Christians are free to be generous and sacrificial in the New Covenant. Mormons remain under law, while Christians operate under grace, a grace that equips them for greater responsibilities than were ever required under the Old Covenant.

There is an enlightening and informative article on Mormon finances here. For a fuller treatment of the biblical teaching on tithing and giving read Brian Anderson’s excellent article on The Bridge Online, from which I have taken some of these bullet points.

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 is an elder in his local church, still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook

Teachings of the President Lorenzo Snow. Chapter 11 Review by Gary Carter

Chapter 11, ‘I Seek Not Mine Own Will but the Will of the Father’, may seem a little bit ‘jarring’ in its location within the book coming as it is does after the important chapter of coming to the temples. The issues that are raised in the chapter are important to discuss however. It is one of those chapters that, unlike the previous chapter, involve detailed analysis of Lorenzo Snow’s theology to discern the LDS theology from the Christian theology. In our journey examining Snow’s thoughts on Jesus’ famous statement that is used as the title for his chapter, we shall focus on two distinctive Mormon ideas in the text. Firstly, we shall investigate the idea that it is possible to take a path where there will be no failure and secondly we shall investigate the difference between successful and faithful with God.

The first area we shall look at focuses on the very first section of Snow’s teaching in this chapter. The particular quotation that is important is ‘there is a course for every person to pursue in which there will be no failure’. This quotation needs to be understood in light of the reference from Doctrine and Covenants that comes shortly after the quotation:

‘If your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you, and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. Therefore sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God (D&C 88:67-68).

We must begin with the areas where Mormonism and Christianity agree. It would be unwise and improper to suggest that saying that ‘seeming failures’ cannot be successes in actuality in God. When we consider Peter, we can see that his massive failures in abandoning Jesus as well as his failure to understand Jesus’ messages were transformed by God into great wisdom and leadership for His purposes. Our greatest failures can be turned into great Godly successes. Where Snow begins to go into areas where Christianity must disagree is the reasoning behind why the LDS church of the 1890’s has not fallen into failure. Snow argues the church has avoided failure as they have ‘fixed upon the true principles of life, and have conformed to their duty’. The church has the Spirit ‘and have followed it. Hence there has been no failure’. This along with the quotation we have seen before, signals a progression from failure being redeemed by God to humanity being able to avoid failure by works, in affect humanity being free from sin through works and redeeming itself.

Now am I over exaggerating here? Am I reading far too much into what Snow is saying? I do not believe that I am. When Snow states that the church has avoided failure has come from ‘conforming to duty’, he states that the avoidance of failure in the sight of the Lord has come from the church’s action rather than the mercy and grace of Christ. This theology has been cut from the same cloth as the theology in chapter five where men can become gods by their works. Snow does say in this section that the ‘people generally have had the Spirit of the Lord, and have followed it’. That seems biblically orthodox doesn’t it? Well, it would again seem a bit bizarre to say that Peter hadn’t failed in his leadership of the church when he was caught in hypocrisy as he ate with Gentiles when James wasn’t around but refused in James’ presence. It would also be bizarre an absurd to say that Peter did not have the Spirit or that the Spirit abandoned him at that time. Peter’s failure in this regard came about by the sin that is in us all. Our lives are a constant wrestle with obeying the Spirit and giving into our sinful urges. There will always be sinful failure on an individual level and on the corporate level as we are all sinful until our purification in our resurrection at death. As such to argue that we can avoid failure in this life by works is not just theologically wrong, but folly.

Our next point of exploration is the difference between success and faithfulness when it comes to God. The sentence that follows the quotation from Doctrine and Covenants we have previously discussed is as follows ‘That is the key by which a person can always be successful’. The quotations that follow, Philippians 3:14 and Doctrine and Covenants 84:38, make references to prizes, which are the reward for success. I do believe however that Snow has misappropriated the quotation from Philippians. The prize he is talking about is the resurrection from the dead that comes from a life with Jesus.

When we consider Philippians 3:13, Paul exhorts us to repent and leave our sins in the past and keep going through the trials, the pain and our own sinfulness towards our true prize, relationship with Christ in eternity. This sounds more like faithfulness rather than success. So what does the LDS church define ‘success’, the word Snow uses on page 150 as? The Bible Dictionary on the LDS website does not give us a definition under the term ‘success’ but this word is used in a couple of other definitions such as Maccabees and Jonah. In these definitions, the word ‘success’ is used in its classical sense, in that the aims that one set out with were achieved and that success was accredited to the person who ‘achieved’ the success.

So is Snow talking about ‘faithfulness’ or ‘success’? The answer to this can be found on page 150 when Snow begins to articulate on the will of God worked through our lives. In this section, Snow works through the lives of Moses and Jeremiah about how the will of the Father is worked through them despite their inadequacies.

Before this discussion however, Snow quotes John 5:19 and then proceeds to argue that if anything needs to be done that requires an ‘exertion’, we need to align our will with God’s. This is, of course, is perfectly Christian. Where it gets a little odd is when Snow argues that when we do this, it will always lead to success that we will eventually see, even if it takes a while for the success to flower. The truth of the matter is that when we align our wills, we do not do so for success. We do so because our creator God asks us to serve Him. He asks us to follow His will just like Jesus so that we can faithful to him.

The element of success that Snow introduces is a clear sign of the work-based salvation that is present in Snow’s thought as seen in chapter 5. It can be argued that the ‘success’ that Snow talks about is rooted within the trek west to the Salt Lake Basin and the overcoming of challenges to get to the Basin in the first place and the challenges that were involved in establishing settlements in the Basin. With this in mind, it could be argued that Snow is using his experiences in trying to articulate his thoughts and this could be conceivable if it weren’t for the other examples of work based salvation theology that have been present in the previous chapters. Snow’s theology, as shown by this example, is part of the foundation of Mormon soteriology (doctrine of salvation) which proclaims that humanity can work their way to the celestial kingdom to exaltation and godhood. Achieving this is what is considered success.

So in conclusion, what can we say about chapter eleven? We can say that, as with previous chapters, Snow is not unfamiliar with Christian theology and makes some points which are not out of step with Christian orthodoxy. What we can also see however is that Snow is still deeply rooted in the idea that humanity can be perfect and work their way to the celestial kingdom, in essence, you can work your way to heaven, something Christianity cannot accept.

Teachings of the prophet Lorenzo Snow, Chapter 10, “Come into the temples” Part 1

It was October 2010 and I was sat in the first session of the Mormon General Conference. The President of the Church Thomas Monson gave the opening talk and announced the locations of where some temples were to be built. The looks of awe and amazement that people in the audience gave each other, and the loud gasps you could hear right across the 21.000 people there really amazed me.

This is an issue of massive significance to Mormons. The temple is the holiest place you can be in on earth, its the place where saving ordnances are carried out for dead people and for yourself, only worthy Mormons who have lived out the Mormon gospel faithfully and fully, and been a member for at least a year can go in. This review will draw from the chapter here quite heavily, but will also be a glimpse of the Mormon temples, and what the Bible says about them as a whole.

Here is a video put together by the Mormon Church, talking about the significance of the temple.  This is short and worth a watch just to see this from the Mormon Perspective.

In p.140 of the Lorenzo Snow manual we see this:

In temples we learn of the marvelous blessings God has prepared for the faithful.
The prospects that God has opened up to our view are wonderful and grand; the imagination cannot conceive of them. Come into the Temples and we will show you. Many of you, I presume, have been there, and have heard the marvelous things that God has prepared for those that love Him and continue faithful to the end. . . .
. . . He has prepared everything for the Latter-day Saints that they could possibly wish or imagine in order to effect their complete happiness throughout the vast eternities.7 [See suggestion 2 on pages 144–45.]

In the Mormon Temple the main functions it carries out are as follows.

• Baptisms for the Dead
• The Endowment ceremony, both for the living and the dead.
• Families being sealed together for eternity
• Wedding sealings, both for the living and the dead.

(Much less talked about is the 2nd anointing ceremony. In this ceremony which an Apostle  presides over, someone can have their calling and election made sure, I believe this means they are then guaranteed celestial glory, provided they remain faithful. I will not be going further into that here, but you can catch an interview with someone who went through that and has since left the LDS Church here.)

I want to spend some time here looking at the Baptisms for the dead, and the endowment ceremony, looking at whether they are really a part of the Biblical gospel, and necessary in order that we might spend get eternal life. The rest of this post will focus on the Baptism for the dead doctrine and another post will follow soon on the endowment.

The belief in Baptism for the dead in the Mormon Church is based upon their belief that when all people die, they go to the Spirit world, awaiting final judgement. Those that lived the gospel of Christ faithfully will go to paradise. We see this in Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 138:11-12

 11 As I ^apondered over these things which are ^bwritten, the ^ceyesof my ^dunderstanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord^erested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the ^fdead, both small and great.

 12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the ^ajust, who had been ^bfaithful in the^ctestimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;

However those that did not live faithfully will go to Spirit Prison, the same D&C chapter refers to those people being preached to by Christ.

 7 “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 8 “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in ^aprison;

This is the LDS interpretation of what we see in 1 Peter 3:18, they also believe that there will be missionaries who have died faithfully who will go to this prison to preach the gospel to the people there. However ultimately for people to be released from this prison someone must be baptised for them in this life. This is massively significant to the Mormon movement and its members.

Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism said:

“The greatest responsibility in this world that God has placed upon us is to seek after our dead” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 356).

This is why there is so much excitement among Mormons when they hear of new temples being built, as they see more temples as more saving ordnances for the alive but mostly for the dead. We see this in the Lorenzo Snow Chapter we are looking at. (p.143)

We desire anxiously that the brethren and sisters should not neglect this important work. Do you know what will be the main labor during the thousand years of rest [the Millennium]? It will be that which we are trying to urge the Latter-day Saints to perform at the present time. Temples will be built all over this land, and the brethren and sisters will go into them and perhaps work day and night in order to hasten the work and accomplish the labors necessary before the Son of Man can present His kingdom to His Father. This work has got to be accomplished before the Son of Man can come and receive His kingdom to present it to His Father.13 [See suggestion 5 on page 145.]

You can see in the bolded part here that temples must be built and all of the necessary labours must be done before Jesus CAN come back. So the more temples are being built for Mormons this means the more the kingdom is advancing and that means that the end is getting all the more close. This is Mormon kingdom advancement.

I just want to spend some time looking at this issue:

Does Baptism for dead people have any effect on the eternity of dead people?

The Biblical basis that the Mormon Church uses for the Baptism for the dead doctrine is 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

So while I believe that contextually, this verse is by no means teaching that Christians should carry out this act which I will show, this still leaves the issue of what does this mean?

Firstly I would ask you to read the full chapter of 1 Corinthians 15. For the sake of space I am not going to quote it all, but please pick up your Bible now and have it in front of you.

Ok, assuming you have done that lets have a look at the chapter.

We see in v1 that Paul is declaring the gospel which he preached (past tense) unto you, which you have received and stand in. So we see he is speaking to Christians, further supported by verse 2.

v3, we see Paul also received this gospel.

v4 to 11 are talking about Christ and Apostles.

v’s 12-18 are interesting as that says that some among the Christians (it says “you”) were saying there is no resurrection of the dead, he talks about the problem with this view. Such as in v18 those who had died in Christ would be perished, which is not the case.

in v19 we see that If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

So Paul is saying that is there was no resurrection for the dead WE would be most miserable. We know from Philippians 1:21 that Paul was very much looking forward to dying and being with Christ so if there was no resurrection of the dead then this is a big deal.

We see in v20-22 the glorious truth that Christ is risen from the dead, and that while all died because of Adam then all live in Christ. We see in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that those that are in Christ are a new creation. Yet in Romans 3:23 ALL have sinned. So therefore in context we know that all without exception are in Adam, yet it is only those new creations that are in Christ, and therefore those are the ones that live.

v’s23-28 talk about the reign of Christ. Then we get to the verse in question. I will quote the two verses after too.

²⁹ Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? ³⁰ And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? ³¹ I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Paul suddenly asks the question what shall they do which are baptised  if the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptised for the dead? Paul has spend the entire chapter addressing the Christians as You and We then all of a sudden it goes from those to they. 

The question needs to be asked why the sudden shift? If Baptism for the dead is so important, and the end will not come until the work is complete why is Paul content leaving this work to someone else? Does not Paul endure ALL things for the sake of the elect? (2Timothy 2:10) Why then is he not engaging in this essential work too?

Why does he seem to assume that his readers are not carrying out this work? Why does he not say that if there is no resurrection when you baptise for the dead you are baptising in vain?

This is because he is referring to people that are not reading his letter. People who are not Christians. We see this cemented by v30 that says And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 

We know from other parts of the letters to the Corinthian Churches that the Church was undergoing persecution.

1 Corinthians 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

2 Corinthians 4:8-9 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

So Paul is asking in v30, why would we stand in Jeopardy every hour IF THERE IS NO RESURRECTION??? 

Why are they baptising for the dead? And why are we standing in Jeopardy? If there is no resurrection (which there is), is the cry of Paul here. Ending with his protest bring fueled by the rejoicing of YOU the Christians.

Who then are the they referred to in v29? In honesty I am not sure, Matthew 22:23 refers to the Sadducee’s as not believing in the resurrection, however I am not sure. Despite looking at this text alone we see elsewhere in the Bible that there are no second chances for salvation after death.

Hebrews 9:27 says: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Everything in the New Testament with regards to salvation is geared towards people responding to Christ here and now.

Romans 10:9-10  Because, 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.10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

There are no second chances, today is the day of Salvation. For more on this check out an excellent article on the Got Questions site here.

In another post soon I will be looking at the Endowment Ceremony in the Temple, in the mean time, I welcome your comments.