January 2014 Ensign Review, by Vicky Gilpin

Having read through this months Ensign Magazine I’ve decided to focus my attentions on this one article.

 LATTER-DAY SAINT VOICES

May I Read That Book?

Neil R. Cardon, Utah, USA

 

In this article Cardon tells of a conversation he had whilst on mission, this conversation resulted in the conversion of the man he was speaking with.

“When it was our turn, I asked, “How do you know the United States exists?” I testified of its reality and asked if there was other evidence that proved its existence. He said he had read about it in books and newspapers. I then asked if he believed my testimony and what he had read. He emphatically said he did.

“So we cannot deny the testimonies of those, such as I, from the United States,” I said. “Nor can we deny the testimony of those who have written about it.” The young man agreed.

I then asked, “Based on this premise, can we deny the testimonies of those who have seen God and written of their experience?” I showed him the Bible, telling him that it contained testimonies of men and women who had seen and talked with God and Jesus Christ. I asked if we can deny the testimonies contained in the Bible, and he reluctantly said no.

I then asked, “What would you think of a book written by a people other than those in the Bible who saw the same God as the writers of Bible?” He responded that no such book existed.

We showed him the Book of Mormon and taught him of its purpose. We testified that it was true and that God still communicates through living prophets today.”

 So here’s the logic…

Testimonies prove a thing to be true

The Book of Mormon contains testimonies

Therefore the Book of Mormon is true

 

The thing is though, testimonies don’t prove a thing to be true, ever heard of a false testimony? And there is a question of the number and quality of the witnesses?

This little story suggests that we simply cannot deny a testimony. Now within Mormonism a testimony is an important thing, Members of the Church ‘bear their testimony,” as a display of their faith. Or a Mormon who has been battered into a theological corner might ‘bear their testimony,’ I know the church is true.” Most Christians would respond with, “well how do you know? On what do you base this belief?” But this “knowing,” is something deeply embedded within Mormonism. In fact in order to become a Mormon you must firstly Pray and see “if it is not true,” you must gain this knowing, this burning in the bosom. So to a member of the LDSChurch this question of weather or not you could deny someone’s testimony might receive a different answer.

Moroni 10:4

“And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”

 

 

Lets look at the Questions asked by Cardon.

Could you deny America exists? 

Well given the vast number of testimonies from a vast number of sources, from people from all different ages and backgrounds and media too – no, we cannot deny America exists.

Can we deny the testimony of the people in the bible?

Well again – Within the pages of the bible are found a vast number of testimonies from people of different backgrounds and cultures, from different generations, some, thousands of years apart and some hundreds of miles apart, all agreeing with one another. Not only that there is a great number of Prophecies, in the Bible which were fulfilled. Many of these very detailed prophecies were about the coming messiah, given hundreds of years before he was born.

 

Here are just a few prophecies about Jesus…

 

For example, the Old Testament prophesied that He would be born of the seed of Abraham (Gen. 12:1-3, 22:18), of the tribe of Judah (Gen 49:10), and in the lineage of David (2 Samuel 7:12f).Micah 5:2 said that He would be born in Bethlehem, that He’d come while the temple was still standing (Malachi 3:1), that He would be born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14), that He would open the eyes of the blind, unstop the ears of the deaf, and cause the lame to walk (Isaiah 35:5-6), that He’d be rejected by His own people (Psalm 118:22; 1 Peter 2:7). The Scriptures foretold the precise time in history when He would die (Daniel 9:24-26), how He would die (Psalm 22:16-18, Isaiah 53;Zechariah 12:10), and that He would rise from the dead (Psalm 16:10; Acts 2:27-32).

And we’re not just taking their word for it, even though we could, given the number of testimonies about God the Father and Jesus in the Bible all corroborating one another. We could take their word for it but we don’t have to just rely on their word because of all the Archaeological evidence that has been found, the places mentioned in the Bible that we can see for ourselves today, the people mentioned in the bible who Archaeologists and historians have confirmed existed. And above all else the effect this gospel message has had on society. History is filled with the effects of Christianity exploding on to the scenes.

Nelson Glueck, who appeared on the cover of Time magazine and who is considered one of the greatest archaeologists ever, wrote:
“No archeological discovery has ever controverted [overturned] a Biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible. And, by the same token, proper evaluation of Biblical descriptions has often led to amazing discoveries.” [Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, p. 31.] 

(For More evidence on the reliability of the Bible check out…

http://www.alwaysbeready.com/  )

 

Finally Cardon testified of another book…

We showed him the Book of Mormon and taught him of its purpose. We testified that it was true and that God still communicates through living prophets today.”

 

Now can the Book of Mormon really compare to the Bible?

I’m afraid not…

We do not have the Book of Mormon plates to confirm their existence

We have no archaeological evidence to confirm the existence of any of the people or places spoken of in the Book of Mormon. not one place, not one coin, not one person has ever positively been identified and confirmed by any outside source. This is why there are no maps in the Book of Mormon.

We have no Archaeological evidence for any of the battles that took place in the Book of Mormon even though, evidence has been found for other historical battles that happened on a much smaller scale.

Additionally, there are numerous anachronisms in the Book of Mormon that archaeology tells us should not be there. In other words, not only isn’t the book supported by archaeology, it is actually contradicted by archaeology.

1 Nephi 2:8 speaks of a river that empties into the Red Sea. No river has ever been found to have emptied into the Red Sea. This demonstrates that the author of the book was not familiar with Middle Eastern geography. If the author of the Book of Mormon was truly from the land of Israel this mistake would not have been made.

2 Nephi 5:15 and several other references speak of the people working with steel. The methods used for producing steel were not discovered until hundreds of years later and were unknown in the America’s until its discovery by the Europeans. This passage is also interesting because this small band of people which may have contained 20 individuals built a temple “like unto Solomon’s”. According to 1 Kings 5:13-18 Solomon employed 30,000 laborers, 70,000 carriers, 80,000 stone cutters and 3,300 foremen, a total of 183,300 workers, to build the temple and it took them approximately seven years to finish the work. But amazingly Nephi builds a similar structure in no time with just his family members.

Enos 1:21 and other references mention horses. However, horses were not introduced on the American continents until the Spanish invasion.

Mosiah 21:27 says that the people possessed plates of ore. Ore is the rock from which metal is extracted. It is not a material from which anything can be made.

Alma 1:29 and other references speak of silk. Once again silk is unknown in the Americas until the coming of Europeans.

2 Nephi 10:3 mentions crucifixion. Crucifixion was developed by the Romans. It was completely unknown on the American continent. The word would have had no meaning to the people hearing it.

This is just a sampling of the many archaeological problems within the Book of Mormon. 

 

DNA Evidence.

This is (or was,) part of the Book of Mormon, introduction…

The book was written by many ancient prophets by the spirit of prophecy and revelation. Their words, written on gold plates, were quoted and abridged by a prophet-historian named Mormon. The record gives an account of the two great civilizations. One came from Jerusalem in 600 B.C., and afterward separated into two nations, known as the Nephites and the Lamanites. The other came much earlier when the Lord confounded the tongues at the Tower of Babel. This group is known as the Jaredites. After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are the principal ancestors of the American Indians

Mitochondrial DNA research has demonstrated that the American Indians are related to the inhabitants of Asia who probably crossed over into this continent across the Bering Strait into Alaska.

In response  to this Evidence the LDS Church has changed the offending verse…

After thousands of years, all were destroyed except the Lamanites, and they are among the ancestors of the American Indian

There are no brackets, or foot notes to explain that this used to say something else, they simply changed it and if your new to the church you would never know it was there.

That leads onto another issue. Changes in the Book of Mormon, yes there are some, in fact many.

 

Some interesting changes…

In the 1981 printing of the “triple combination”  A very important change was made. Previous editions of the Book of Mormon had said that in the last days the Indians “shall be a white and delightsome people.” (2 Nephi 30:6) In the new edition this has been altered to read that the Indians “shall be a pure and delightsome people.”. . .

First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830): “Behold, the virgin which thou seest, is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh.”

Today: 1 Nephi 11:18: “…is the mother of the Son of God.” 

 

 First Book of Nephi, p.25 (1830):.”…behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father!”

Today: 1 Nephi 11:21: “yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father!” 

Book of Alma, p.303; (1830): “yea, I know that he allotteth unto men, yea, decreeth unto them decrees which are unalterable,.according to their wills..”Book of Mormon (1950):Alma 29:4:”yea, I know that he allotteth unto men [?].according to their wills.. ”

 

These are not just, spelling mistakes or grammar corrections these changes alter the meaning of the text and these are just a few examples there are many, many more.

So …

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible.” (The Book of Mormon, Intro,) … Sorry but it just doesn’t stand up to the test.

 

As always I appreciate your feedback

 

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

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

Ten Things You Should Know About Spencer W Kimball

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

The Miracle of Forgiveness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Belief in God

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

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

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

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

The Plan

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

1. Pre-mortal Life

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

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

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

2. Mortal Life

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

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

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

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

3. Immortal Life

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

Now note the following carefully:

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

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

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

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

Three things must be taken into account as you read:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Windmills of the Mormon Mind

 

 

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

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

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

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

Happiness a Spiritual Fruit?

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

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

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

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

God and Son

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

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

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

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

Joining the Parade

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

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

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

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

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

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

Generations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Land-Grabs and Dodgy Banking

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

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

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

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

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

Buried Treasure

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dodgy Banking

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, Lorenzo Snow-1889

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

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

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

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

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

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

Review of Teachings of Lorenzo Snow chapter 20: The Kingdom of God Moves Forward

For this review I am going to focus on the part of the chapter entitled Teachings of Lorenzo Snow and not look at the beginning of the chapter entitled From the Life of Lorenzo Snow.  I have chosen to do this for two reasons: firstly, I feel that my role in writing this post is to address the differences between LDS teaching, belief and doctrine and Biblically-based Christian teaching, and secondly, I found that I had so much I wanted to deal with in the ‘teachings’ section that it seemed unnecessary to dwell on the other areas.

I would first like to look at this bold claim: “That Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and other ancient worthies had this religion successively, in a series of dispensations, we, as a people, verily believe. … Mormonism, in short, is the primitive Christian faith restored, the ancient Gospel brought back again.”  I would like to know what evidence the LDS church has to substantiate such a claim.  Their religion is based heavily on the idea of eternal families being sealed together in exclusive temple ceremonies.  Through these ceremonies, people can progress along a path that can ultimately lead to godhood.  These principles are not found in the accounts we have of Adam, Enoch, Noah, Abraham and Moses and they certainly do not resonate with the teachings, actions, life, death and resurrection of Jesus as contained in the New Testament.  Neither do the epistles addressed to the early churches contain anything that can be described as Mormonism.  No path to godhood, no salvation by “grace after all we can do”, no belief in one Prophet, seer and revelator overseeing and running one all-encompassing organisation, no Aaronic and Melchizedek Priesthoods, no exclusive temple ceremonies, no obligation to pay ten per cent of all income to the prophet’s organisation.  A claim such as the one above really ought to be backed up with evidence to support it.

In the paragraph following the one quoted above, we read of a kingdom being established where “light and intelligence shall be so generally diffused that it shall no longer be necessary for any man to say to his fellows, “Know ye the Lord, but all shall know him, from the least unto the greatest;” [see Jeremiah 31:34]”.  Yet the Lord of this Kingdom, who should be so easy to identify, is in fact rather difficult to get a grasp of when we actually look in detail at LDS sources:

“Jesus, our elder brother, was begotten in the flesh by the same character that was in the garden of Eden, and who is our Father in Heaven” (Brigham Young in ‘Journal of Discourses’, 1:50-51)

“And behold, he shall be born of Mary, at Jerusalem which is the land of our forefathers, she being a virgin, a precious and chosen vessel, who shall be overshadowed and conceive by the power of the Holy Ghost, and bring forth a son, yea, even the Son of God.”  (Alma 7:10)  Please note that this verse not only incorrectly states the birthplace of Jesus, but also contradicts the previous quote.

Therefore, it does not appear clear that the teaching of ‘the Kingdom’ in relation to ‘the Lord’ is clear or consistent even with itself or with the Bible.  So it would seem that the ‘light and intelligence’ brought about by the LDS church has not been helpful in aiding people to ‘know the Lord’.

This section of the chapter also refers to the prophecy made in Joel which states that “your sons and your daughters shall prophesy”.  This is included to build a picture of what the ‘Kingdom’ that the LDS church is establishing is like.  Old Testament scripture is being used here to try and legitimise LDS claims, yet to say that women in the LDS version of God’s kingdom can authoritatively ‘prophesy’ is ridiculous.  That is the domain of a select few.  That select few certainly contains no women!

Continuing the description of this kingdom, we read that “God has set up His Church and Kingdom on the earth for the benefit and blessing of the human family”.  Yet, if that is the case, one has to wonder why God would let this kingdom fail so badly in Mormon eyes from the end of the era of the first apostles to Joseph Smith’s ‘first vision’ (a period of around 1700 years) if it were his intention to benefit and bless the human family.  The words of Jesus in Matthew 16:18 (I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it) and 24:35 (Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away) should be enough to make it clear that God’s intentions were that his truth and church would not fall away or be removed from the earth and therefore the notion of a restoration is not something that God would ever have deemed necessary.  The chapter goes on to say: “Now talk about this kingdom being destroyed! … Why, you might as well try to pluck the stars from the firmament or the moon or the sun from its orbit! It never can be accomplished, for it is the work of the Almighty.”  Mormon teaching would suggest that the church established by Jesus did not even last as long as the LDS church has currently lasted, so how could any Mormon have confidence in the durability of their own organisation when it makes such a claim about the New Testament church established by Jesus himself?  The Kingdom of God seems to be a pretty flimsy concept in the LDS understanding.

A little further on is a statement that clears up any doubts about what the LDS church teaches about the Bible: “This Church will stand, because it is upon a firm basis. It is not from man; it is not from the study of the New Testament or the Old Testament”.  It would appear that for Mormons there is nothing secure about God’s revealing of his nature, identity and personality in either the Old or New Testament.  For an organisation that claims to be Christian, and the only 100% authentic version of Christianity at that, this is quite a bold claim regarding the importance of using the New Testament to understand and come to know the person of Jesus!  The chapter continues to explain that the LDS church has, “come directly from the Lord. The Lord has shown it to us by the revealing principle of the Holy Spirit of light”.  Really?  So you can ignore anything the New Testament has to say about Jesus and instead trust in a religion:

based upon a book written by a man using a rock in a hat to tell him what words should be written,

which contains a book that is built upon a provable lie (the claim that the papyrus used for the translation of the Book of Abraham had writings on it which were written by Abraham himself),

which has contradictory teachings on the nature of God: “How much unbelief exists in the minds of the Latter-day Saints in regard to one particular doctrine which is revealed to them, and which God revealed to me — namely that Adam is our father and God” – Brigham Young, and then: “We warn you against the dissemination of doctrines which are not according to the scriptures and which are alleged to have been taught by some General Authorities of past generations, such, for instance is the Adam-God theory. We denounce that theory and hope that everyone will be cautioned against this and other kinds of false doctrine” – Spencer Kimball.  Contradictory positions could also be provided here for the LDS position of polygamy and the rights of black people to hold ‘the priesthood’.

We then read that the Lord “opens to us the secrets of the celestial kingdom” yet neither Jesus nor the early church leaders teach anything about the celestial kingdom or mention anything that would even support the notion of meriting the right to live with God in heaven after we die on the basis of our own actions.  In fact the exclusivity of access to the celestial kingdom being through temple attendance, participation and worthiness is in direct contradiction with the Bible.  Consider these verses:

“Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.  And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom”  Matthew 27:50-51

“For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour;   Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth.   For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;   Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time”  1 Timothy 2:3-6

“For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby: And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.  For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.  Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow citizens with the saints, and of the household of God; And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;  In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:  In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.”  Ephesians 2:14-22

These verses demonstrate clearly that the notion of ‘secrets of the celestial kingdom’ flies directly in the face of the New Testament understanding, and therefore original Christianity’s understanding, of what the teachings, suffering, life, death and resurrection of Jesus mean for us.

The chapter continues: “Our work is … to become more and more perfect as we advance in years”.  This is a nonsense.  One cannot become ‘more perfect’.  Perfection ultimately means a state that can not be improved upon.  So to suggest that people can become more and more perfect is impossible.  It is also unbiblical to say that any improvement in our condition is down to ‘our work’.  Our work is as “filthy rags” (Isaiah 64:6) and the good work that goes on in the heart of a believer is not attributable to the believer, but rather to God: “he which hath begun a good work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ:” (Philippians 1:6)

A little later on, the chapter discusses the commitment and sacrifices expected of LDS members to the cause of their faith or the building up of their ‘kingdom’.  Doctrine and Covenants section 98 is quoted here: “I will prove you in all things, whether you will abide in my covenant, even unto death, that you may be found worthy; for if ye will not abide in my covenant, ye are not worthy of me.”  Again, we have here an example of the God of Mormonism telling his people that by sticking to the rules, they will then be worthy of him, and that if they fail to do this, they are not worthy of him.  Yet we know from the Bible that none is worthy of God (Romans 3:23) and that one is only ‘made worthy’ or justified by the free gift of grace (Romans 3:24) rather than by trying to earn worthiness.

Continuing on in the chapter, LDS believers are reminded that they “are engaged in the work of God. The prospects before us are glorious” and they are then told that they “may increase in knowledge and power”.  I am saddened that these appeals to glory of the self and the acquisition of power for one’s self are being made.  Is all the effort that this chapter is asking LDS members to make being done for such purposes?  Again I turn to Romans to demonstrate the Bible’s view of whose glory we should be concerned with, “if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.  For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.”  (Romans 8:17-18)  Therefore, believers inherit God’s righteousness and glory, it is not about a path of progression to our own state of godhood where the power and glory are our own.  As that famous prayer makes clear: “thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever”.

The conclusion of the chapter builds on this theme of sacrifice in the cause of the LDS church:  “I would not give the ashes of a rye straw for any religion that was not worth living for and that was not worth dying for; and I would not give much for the man that was not willing to sacrifice his all for the sake of his religion.”  I find this statement problematic since there are a great many people, from a wide variety of religions, who have suffered and died due to their commitment to a sincerely held faith.  Such events reveal the depth of that person’s faith and not the veracity of their religion.  The theme of persecution is a recurrent one in LDS teaching materials and most LDS are well versed in the notion of being a ‘peculiar people’ and suffering for standing out in this way.  It is certain that the early LDS church members underwent some terrible ordeals at certain times and I would not want to make light of that, however, it is worth pointing out that often the people were suffering for their leaders’ practice of polygamy, or in response to a perception that the communal, close-knit Mormon way of life at that time represented a threat in terms of the LDS potentially being a political bloc, or a closed-off unit of industry, productivity and cultural isolation.  Let’s not forget why Joseph Smith was even in Carthage Jail in the first place.  Whatever the rights or wrongs of the treatment meted out to the early LDS, I think it would be a misrepresentation to suggest that they were suffering for their faith in Christ.  Christians this very day are being persecuted around the world for following Jesus and for refusing to renounce their faith.  Their struggles are well-documented here: http://www.releaseinternational.org/  Someone who truly suffered for Christ, and whose book I would recommend as probably the most inspirational thing I have ever read outside of scripture, is Richard Wurmbrand.  He was a Christian pastor in Romania during the era of communism.  He was imprisoned and horrifically abused for many years but never lost his faith.  His actions and life speak of a true devotion to Christ and his actions were imbued with total trust in the loving role of Jesus in his life.  To conclude my review I will leave you with his words:

“I have seen Christians in Communist prisons with fifty pounds of chains on their feet, tortured with red-hot iron pokers, in whose throats spoonfuls of salt had been forced, being kept afterward without water, starving, whipped, suffering from cold–and praying with fervor for the Communists. This is humanly inexplicable! It is the love of Christ, which was poured out in our hearts.”

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.

Anti-Mormon? The Mormon “Great Game”

Following the peaceful and successful Christian witness at the Mormon British Pageant held at the Mormon temple in Lancashire (right) and led by this ministry (see previous posts for reports) the inevitable and inevitably amateur response has appeared on the internet.

The usual name-calling has been going on, one favourite being “protesters,” which brought a smile to the faces of happy Christians peacefully engaging Mormons in conversation and handing out literature to passers-by. The inevitable, “anti-Mormon” label came out of course and I want to share some thoughts about that.

The Oct. 1997 issue of the liberal Mormon Sunstone magazine (Vol. 20:3, Issue 107) carried an amusing article about alternative names for “Anti-Mormons.” (Thanks to Vince for drawing this list to my attention. Comments in brackets are my own, of course)

Sceptics (And this is a bad thing because…?)

Gentiles (Mormons consider themselves the new Israel)

Mormon-detractors

Counter-Mormons (That’s anti-Mormons to the rest of us)

Anti-Christs (At least we know now what Mormons think of honest critics)

Mormophobes (It isn’t an irrational fear but a healthy scepticism – see 1 above)

Nehors (Nehor is an obscure Book of Mormon character who led an apostate sect)

Avatars of Satan (An avatar is an incarnation of a deity; see comment on temple “minister” below)

Challengers (Fair comment. So stop name-calling and meet the challenge)

The unconverted (Christians? Unconverted? Interesting insight)

Contra-Mormons (pro-Christians)

Post-Mormons (Thank goodness that’s behind us then)

Unwashed heathens (Lets not dignify that…)

Ignorant fools (Mt.5:22)

Tannerites (Sandra Tanner and her late husband Jerald, former Mormons, are the most influential critics of Mormonism in the 20^th century)

O Benighted Ones (We are getting into the realms of Twilight here, surely)

Dysfunctional pseudo-Christians (Pardon me? I can dress myself)

Friends of other faiths (FOOFS) (To Mormons other churches are “other faiths,” a telling fact since churches are Christian so what does that make Mormonism except “another faith?” Gal.1:8-9)

Friends of opposing lifestyles (FOOLS) (See Mt.5:22 again)

Patrons of opposing philosophies (POOPS) (snigger)

Acquaintances of negative theological interests (ANTIs)

The Gentile Liberation Front (see 2 above)

CsOTMC (Critics of the Mormon Church) (I can live with that)

Objectivity-challenged Mormon commentators

and, “persons in straw hats who sit upon lawn chairs in the full sun all day long and distribute perversely negative literature about the LDS church at the exits of parking lots of LDS temple open houses, who are otherwise harmless…” (I have never owned a lawn chair in my life, although I do have a straw hat)

Childish, isn’t it? And, of course, you can’t ascribe this sort of infantile nonsense to every Mormon you meet. On the other hand, it is not entirely atypical. If this kind of “critical” response was put on a spectrum most, if not all Mormons would fit on it somewhere.

The Mormon Great Game

Typical of the response of Mormons to criticism is to attempt to isolate critics from the mainstream of Christian thought and even civilised society. This is done by labelling critics “anti-Mormon,” defining them in terms of their relationship to Mormonism rather than by their faith, and ascribing to them base motives far removed from those of true, good-hearted Christians.

Mormonism’s critics are portrayed as holding to beliefs that are peculiar even to other Christians, as having problems with Mormon theology that most other Christians would not have. There is a history to this kind of approach, represented by such Mormon books as Offenders for a Word, How Wide the Divide and Are Mormons Christians?

Further, in an attempt to legitimise theology that is peculiar to Mormonism, and alien to historical, orthodox Christianity, Mormons seek first to redefine what are often settled issues for the Christian Church; the nature of God, the nature of man, the person of Jesus, the nature of sin, the significance of the cross, the means of grace and salvation, the work of the Holy Spirit, the reliability of the Bible and the eternal destiny of the saints.

This way they create something more in their own image and call it Christianity. They then compare the views of Christian apologists looking critically at Mormonism with this chimera and represent these apologists as though they are out on a limb as far as most Christians are concerned. I call this the Mormon Great Game.

Christian, Evangelical and Biblical

Anyone reading literature produced by Christian critics of Mormonism, indeed reading this blog, will readily see that these thoughtful critics usually stand squarely within the Evangelical Christian tradition when it comes to doctrine. In challenging Mormon thought they represent accurately the problems most Christians would have with Mormon theology.

Christians would have real problems with the Mormon teaching that God is an exalted man, Jesus his literal physical Son; man an eternal being; sin something we pick up from influences around us; the cross simply the place where Jesus died; salvation as something you earn; the Spirit one of three distinct gods; the Bible as unreliable and godhood the ultimate goal for every believer deemed “worthy” of exaltation. All Mormon teachings, none squaring with historical, orthodox Christianity.

According to the official Mormon web site, there are over seventy thousand full-time Mormon missionaries around the world today, as well as the almost 15million ‘lay members’ to whom the aphorism “every member a missionary” applies (For more on how Mormon demographics don’t add up see the Mormon Chapbook). They are calling on our neighbours with their message of families, temples, extra-biblical revelation and the rest, and insist that, unlike their detractors, they are simply proclaiming their message and sharing what they believe.

Mormons; Tearing Down the Walls

However, in “teaching what [they] believe to be the teachings of Jesus Christ”, as one correspondent insisted, they do not themselves simply present their view. Their message is grounded in the doctrine that all other churches are in apostasy; their creeds an abomination, believers corrupt, their practices ungodly and their ministers without authority (Joseph Smith, History 1:19).

The first lesson given by Mormon missionaries emphasises the corrupt, apostate nature of Christian churches. Mormonism is presented immediately as a restoration of truth and authority “after centuries of spiritual darkness.” An integral part of their message is an attack on established Christian churches; tearing down the walls of established truth.

In light of this, I suggest their familiar cry, “why do you have to tear down other people’s beliefs?” is breathtakingly disingenuous. In presenting Mormonism, they inevitably tear down the faith of Bible-believing Christians everywhere. If we are “anti-Mormon” what does that make them?

Many Mormon books have been written about, and web pages dedicated to, the defence of Mormonism against those who criticise it. There are also publications ‘correcting’, in light of Mormon beliefs, ‘apostate’ Christian beliefs and practices and educating people in the ‘restored’ Mormon gospel. All of them compare Christianity unfavourably with Mormonism.

The Book of Mormon Starts the Game

The Book of Mormon, said by Joseph Smith to be, “the cornerstone of our faith,” itself is scathing in its attack on the Christian Church, “predicting” a universal apostasy and condemning Christian churches in the strongest terms:

1 Nephi 13

24 And the angel of the Lord said unto me: Thou hast beheld that the book [the Bible] proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew; and when it proceeded forth from the mouth of a Jew it contained the fulness of the gospel of the Lord, of whom the twelve apostles bear record; and they bear record according to the truth which is in the Lamb of God…

…26 And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the formation of that great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away…

…28 Wherefore, thou seest that after the book hath gone forth through the hands of the great and abominable church, that there are many plain and precious things taken away from the book, which is the book of the Lamb of God.

But these plain and precious truths, lost through the corruption of the great and abominable church, would be restored:

35 For, behold, saith the Lamb: I will manifest myself unto thy seed, that they shall write many things which I shall minister unto them, which shall be plain and precious [The Book of Mormon]; and after thy seed shall be destroyed, and dwindle in unbelief, and also the seed of thy brethren, behold, these things shall be hid up, to come forth unto the Gentiles, by the gift and power of the Lamb [through Joseph Smith]….

…38 And it came to pass that I beheld the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the book of the Lamb of God, which had proceeded forth from the mouth of the Jew, that it came forth from the Gentiles unto the remnant of the seed of my brethren [the Lamanites, or American Indians].

39 And after it had come forth unto them I beheld other books, which came forth by the power of the Lamb, from the Gentiles unto them, unto the convincing of the Gentiles and the remnant of the seed of my brethren, and also the Jews who were scattered upon all the face of the earth, that the records of the prophets and of the twelve apostles of the Lamb are true.

40 And the angel spake unto me, saying: These last records [The Book of Mormon], which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first [The Bible], which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved. (Words in square brackets added)

Mormon Leaders Play the Game

Mormon leaders have, over the years, been scathing about the churches. In this same section of the Book of Mormon the writer goes on to talk about “the great and abominable church [being] the mother of harlots” Mormon apostle, Bruce R McConkie commented:

“Speaking of harlots in the figurative sense, he (Nephi) designated the Catholic Church as ‘the mother of harlots’ (I Ne.13:34; 14:15-17) a title which means that the protestant churches, the harlot daughters which broke off from the great and abominable church, would themselves be apostate churches.” (Mormon Doctrine, 1958, pp.314-315)

Now doubt there about where Mormonism stands in relation to the Christian churches. Speaking in 1893 the Mormon prophet John Taylor said:

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

Mormons Play the Game in Secret

Up until 1990 the Mormon temple endowment ceremony portrayed a Christian minister as in the pay of the devil! He was made to look corrupt because he preached for money (see Luke 10:7; 1 Cor.9:7-12 esp.v11); His message of an invisible God “so great he can fill the universe, ye so small he can dwell in your heart” (a grotesque caricature) was mocked mercilessly. This portrayal was only removed after strong and repeated protests from outraged Christians and some Mormons who felt increasingly uncomfortable with it.

If Mormons are permitted to ‘apologise’ for, defend and spread their views by casting Christianity in such a poor light I fail to see any justification for Mormon complaints about works that closely and critically examine Mormonism. We might justifiably claim to be simply defending our own faith against Mormon critics calling at our doors. Instead of manufacturing labels for honest critics I suggest they should use their time and energy bringing honest answers to honest questions. Anti-Mormon? I don’t think so.

Getting Some “Fair” Attention Part 4, by Mike Thomas

The review of the final day of the outreach to Mormons at the British Mormon Pageant 2013, written by Jason Thickpenny, made mention of the controversy surrounding the long discredited Mormon “scripture,” The Book of Abraham. The subject had come up in discussion with Mormons and Jason commented, “They had no idea about the fact it had been proven to be falsely translated.”  There was little more on the subject, simply a link through to the CARMS website where further research might be carried out.

The typical Mormon response to criticism is nicely summed up in a short conversation Jason reproduced for us:

“Right at the end we spoke to a Lady who said that we are in error because we don’t accept that today we have a priesthood. I showed her Hebrews 1:1-2, to which she said ‘your not using the Kings James Bible’ – I showed the side of it, and then showed her the front – to which she then said ‘well…that bit must not have been translated right’……..’you young man need to read the book of Mormon’, I said ‘with all due respect why would I need to when God has already given me the answer in the bible?’ She left pretty sharp after that!!”

There is so much that might be said but I want you to note how easily a Mormon dismisses the Bible. It is an attitude you will come across time and again and, as we consider the Book of Abraham controversy, keep in mind that a typical Mormon will even dismiss the word of God in Scripture rather than consider their prophets might be wrong.

No, No, No

Ned Scarisbrick is a Mormon of long experience who began his podcast, The 4th Watch, in March 2013. It is an apologetics programme to help Mormons better understand their faith and, to this end, he has produced, “a compilation response  to several articles posted at the anti-Mormon web site, ‘Mormonism Investigated UK’…” (I will have more to say next week about “anti-Mormons” and other epithets so beloved of Mormons)

By the time you come to the end of his podcast, where he deals with the BofA, you are used to his avuncular style and the simple Mormon side-step of answering evidence with unsubstantiated assertions. “No, no, no” he insists as he refutes each challenge with barely more than unadorned denial. As he warms to the subject of the BofA he begins by making an ad hominem attack on the source cited, i.e. CARMS.

“CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned. Well, I carry no brief for Matt Slick but this is not about Matt Slick, it is about the Bof A. Does Ned have anything compelling to say that might disprove what Matt Slick and many others have to say about the Bof A? Well let’s see what Ned comes up with as he commits almost every Mormon  faux pas and in mere minutes.

Ad hominem attack: “CARMS? You trust CARMS? Matt Slick? No, no, no. It’s just not so.” declares Ned.

Assertion: “It has not been proven false.”

Appeal to Biased Source: Ned sends us to FAIR, the people for whom he is producing these podcasts.

Opinion: “He wants us to take his own view as fact,” Ned says of Jason’s post, before going on to share his own opinion (another assertion), “But it is not falsely translated.”

False Trail: He then asserts that what manuscripts we have today are nothing to do with the Bof A, as demonstrated in Dr Hugh Nibley’s book, Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri. Again, hardly an unbiased source since Hugh Nibley was the Mormon church’s go-to man for any and every expert opinion. This is the same Hugh Nibley who is quoted in the December 1967 issue of The Daily Universe, pb.BYU, “The Papyri scripts given to the church do not prove the Book of Abraham is true…The church has been caught flat footed by this discovery.”

Rewriting History: “The church,” Ned insists, “has never claimed these have anything to do with the Book of Abraham.” Yet, in the Improvement Era of January 1968 we read,

“Perhaps no discovery in recent memory is expected to arouse as much widespread interest in the restored gospel as is the recent discovery of some Egyptian papyri, one of which is known to have been used by the Prophet Joseph Smith in producing the Book of Abraham.

Included in the collection of 11 manuscripts is one identified as the original document from which Joseph Smith obtained Facsimile 1, which prefaces the Book of Abraham in the Pearl of Great Price. Accompanying the manuscripts was a letter dated May 26, 1856, signed by both Emma Smith Bidamon, widow of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and their son, Joseph Smith, attesting that the papyri had been the property of the Prophet.”

It certainly sounds like it it has something to do with the writing of the BofA and the official church Improvement Era says as much.

Lingua Obscura: This is a classic Mormon defence in which the message is – We don’t really know. This stuff is very hard and, after all, translating stuff isn’t easy; culture, language, idiom, historical context, hard stuff like that. Who knows? Lets leave it to the experts to thrash it out, remembering no two experts will give the same translation, nobody agrees, its pretty hopeless really, so just let the Spirit work. Just believe.

So many problems with what Ned is saying here. First, wasn’t there some talk of living prophets? The mantle of Joseph and all that? So, why doesn’t the prophet cut through all this speculation and simply get the job done? Come out and explain what this is all about and put people’s minds at rest for goodness sake.

Secondly, if translation is so fraught with pitfalls and imponderable difficulties how come we have the Book of Mormon in so many languages? That is supposed to be an ancient document. The Bible certainly is an ancient document and we get by somehow in producing modern translations and in different languages that pretty much agree with each other. So where’s the fire?

Thirdly, if you ask any and every Egyptologist worth his salt they will all agree on one thing. The Book of Abraham is a fraud. Do you want evidence of this? Bill McKeever of Mormonism Research Ministry has written a helpful article. (I know Ned wants to say, “MRM? You trust MRM? Bill McKeever? No, no, no.” but maybe he should look at what Bill actually brings to the table before judging. After all, that’s what Mormons would ask for their message)

Bill’s article can be found here. What is interesting is the list of scholars and their unanimous opinion. Here are their comments:

“It is difficult to deal seriously with Joseph Smith’s impudent fraud.”

Dr. A.H. Sayce, Oxford, England

“I have examined the illustrations given in the ‘Pearl of Great Price.’ In the first place, they are copies (very badly done) of well known Egyptian subjects of which I have dozens of examples. Secondly, they are all many centuries later than Abraham.”

Dr. W.M. Flinders Petrie, London University

“Joseph Smith’s interpretation of them as part of a unique revelation through Abraham, therefore, very clearly demonstrates that he was totally unacquainted with the significance of these documents and absolutely ignorant of the simplest facts of Egyptian writing and civilization.”

James, H. Breasted, Ph.D., Haskell Oriental Museum, University of Chicago

“The ‘Book of Abraham,’ it is hardly necessary to say, is a pure fabrication.”

Dr. Arthur C. Mace, Assist. Curator, Metropolitan Museum of Art, NY, Dept. of Egyptian Art

“The plates contained in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are rather comical and a very poor imitation of Egyptian originals.”

Dr. John Peters, Univ. of Pennsylvania

“…the explanatory notes to his facsimiles cannot be taken seriously by any scholar, as they seem to be undoubtedly the work of pure imagination.”

Rev. Prof. C.A.B. Mercer, Ph.D., Western Theological Seminary, Custodian Hibbard Collection, Egyptian Reproductions.

“The Egyptian papyrus which Smith declared to be the ‘Book of Abraham,’ and ‘translated’ or explained in his fantastical way, and of which are three specimens are published in the ‘Pearl of Great Price’ are parts of the well known ‘Book of the Dead.’ Although the reproductions are very bad, one can easily recognize familiar scenes from this book.”

Dr. Edward Meyer, University of Berlin

“A careful study has convinced me that Smith probably believed seriously to have deciphered the ancient hieroglyphics, but that he utterly failed. What he calls the ‘Book of Abraham’ is a funeral Egyptian text, probably not older than the Greek ages.”

Dr. Friedrich Freiheer Von Bissing, Professor of Egyptology in the University of Munich

Of course, for any true believing Mormon no amount of unbiased,  expert opinion will be enough. Remember Jason’s conversation and how ready the Mormon lady was to reject the Bible. But the American theologian John Gresham Machen observed:

“Because argument is insufficient, it does not follow that it is unnecessary. What the Holy Spirit does in the new birth is not make a person a Christian regardless of the evidence, but on the contrary, to clear away the mists from his eyes and enable him to attend to the evidence.” (quoted in John Stott, The Contemporary Christian, p.59)

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

Is Mormonism ditching Prophets? A look at the 2013 edition of the LDS Scriptures

Is the Mormon Church turning from “living prophets” to academia to gain traction in the 21st century? Are Mormons turning to prophets for homiletic inspiration and academics for professional credibility in the 24/7 internet world? Does the Mormon message of prophets mean anything anymore?

The unique claim of Mormons is that they are led by “living prophets.” Prophets are integral to their claim to be a “Restoration” church, prophets are what distinguish Mormonism and prophets are foundational to their claim to, alone in this world, have authority to speak and act for God. It is understood, historically, that when a Mormon scholar speaks on Mormon issues, no matter how illustrious his or her career, how impressive their curriculum vitae, it is still “only their opinion,” albeit a professional opinion. Prophets alone make doctrine.

The Strange World of Mormon Prophets

However, Mormon prophets have come up with pretty wacky ideas and practices. The list is long: Polyamory, polygamy, polyandry, banking scandals, institutional racism, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The exposure of the much vaunted Book of Abraham – “written by [Abraham’s] own hand” according to Joseph Smith – as an Egyptian Book of Breathings circa 50BC to 50AD. The infamous forgery scandals that hoodwinked Gordon B Hinckley and led to the tragic Salt Lake City bombings of 1985.

Mormon prophets have increasingly proved a liability and it has been the church’s practice to bury their dead prophets’ ideas along with them. Mormons are used to explaining away the embarrassing statements and practices of past leaders, from the sexually predacious Joseph Smith and the monomaniacal Brigham Young, through the rabid dogmatism of Bruce R McConkie, the bogus claims of Paul H Dunn and his “Early Life and War Experiences,” to the inability of Gordon B Hinckley to stay away from TV cameras, opening his mouth only to change feet.

I want to point out two developments I consider significant in this regard with the publication of their 2013 edition of the Mormon scriptures. Mormon prophets are so wrong as to be a liability and Mormons now admit it, and the Mormon Church is looking to academics to do what, in a more innocent time, prophets once did.

Declaration 2

On June 8, 1978 a statement was issued from church headquarters declaring the long standing ban on men of African descent holding the Mormon priesthood lifted. This statement is found in all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), along with the earlier declaration of 1890 abandoning, officially, the practice of polygamy.

What is effectively a colour bar has been a thorn in the side of the Mormon Church and stood for most of that church’s history. Historically, it has been founded on Mormon Scripture and teaching. Generations of Mormon leaders have developed and at length taught the reasons for the bar to black priesthood holders.

In the 2013 edition of the D&C, to the original declaration has been appended a preface purporting to explain the background to this development:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

Gone is the, the elaborate story of war in heaven, less noble pre-mortals, the curse of a black skin, talk of the negro being a descendent of Cain and a representative of Satan on the earth, key elements of the Plan of Salvation. Worse, gone is the confidence in prophets as the church openly “admits” it has no idea why this teaching held sway for almost 150 years of its 180 year history. Where once any Aaronic priesthood holder (age 12-17) might have explained it now even prophets cannot.

This is nonsense, of course, and they know and understand full well the elaborate theological arguments for the bar. As you scan the faces of Mormon General Authorities on the stand at conference time you are looking at men who grew up being taught and went on to teach the Mormon mythology regarding ignoble premortal lives, the consequent “curse” of black skin and its resulting proscriptions. This is a public relations exercise designed to distance today’s church from its own history, rather like Nazi’s burning documents when it became clear the war wasn’t going their way.

What is significant is the unqualified admission that prophets at the head of God’s only true church cannot understand or explain Mormon doctrine. Further, Mormon Church history, which has always been in the hands of a fastidiously “record-keeping” Mormonism, can shed no light on the matter. It comes to something when feigning such ignorance is better than owning your own church’s history and teaching.

Mormons, it seems, cannot look to their prophets, nor can they rely on their own historical records to help them understand their own church and doctrine. Where, then, are they to look for guidance? If not to prophets, past or present, where are Mormons to look for revelation? That’s the next post.