Tag Archives: Prophets

General Conference, April 2014 – Saturday Morning

General Conference imageThis session was presided over by Thomas S Monson and conducted by Dieter Uchtdorf, affectionately dubbed ‘the silver fox’ by some, and second counsellor in the first presidency. Boyd K Packer of the twelve apostles is, not so affectionately, nicknamed ‘Darth Packer’ and ‘Boyd KKK Packer,’ by critics both inside and outside the church for his unreconstructed Mormon outlook. I point this out only to say the two men represent for many the passing of the ‘old guard’ (Packer) and the coming of a softer, more acceptable face of Mormonism (Uchtdorf). Yet it might be said of Mormonism, the more things change, the more they remain the same.

In a world where many are struggling to define themselves, to identify which “tribe” they belong to, where Western Europeans (my perspective) are asking whether theirs is a local, regional, national or European identity, Mormons see themselves as a people group with clear distinctives of which they are unashamed. The Mormon Tabernacle Choir sang beautifully looking splendid in their matching outfits, plum coloured two piece for the women, conservative suits, white shirts, and ties for the men, and all obviously enjoying themselves.

This uniformity extends to all true-believing-Mormon attendees, as you will see from the pictures in the May Ensign magazine; it struck me as a key theme in the conference. There is apparent change, i.e. from Packer to Uchtdorf, yet there is also obvious uniformity. At a time when even Mormons are asking themselves who exactly is making doctrine for the church these days, the General Authorities or church lawyers and members of the BYU faculty, conference is where Mormons get reassuring answers. This where the Mormon world, troubled by a clear shift in the tectonic plates of their faith, find apparent continuity, a squaring of the circle, a reconciling of the old (Packer) with the new (Uchtdorf).

This uniformity, which Mormons mistake for unity, sometimes works, as in the case of Linda S Reeve, president of the Relief Society, who gave an impassioned and earnest plea for people to face up to the problem of pornography. I found myself nodding enthusiastically as she spoke reason and faith on a subject that should concern us all, and I noted how comfortable Mormons would have been with a female leader that fitted the mould of generations of Relief Society presidents.

On the other hand, Carlos Amado, originally from Guatemala City, and of the first quorum of the seventy, appeared to struggle not so much with speaking English, which he handled well enough as a second language, as with the peculiar idiom of Mormon leadership. I don’t write this to in any way denigrate the man but I considered, if he came and spoke in my church we would not expect such a performance from him and he would have been encouraged to be his native self and share his message in his own words.

He had to wrestle with the Jacobean English in the King James Bible that Mormons insist on using, but he further struggled to sound like a General Authority, mimicking tones and inflections, phrases and terminology clearly designed to give the impression of solemnity and reverence, nevertheless language that has no place in the modern world and that would trip up anyone using English as a second language. But that image of unity and continuity was achieved as he met the demands of being a General Authority, speaking Mormonese to the conference.

President Monson came out with the expected anecdote to illustrate his theme, “Live true to the Faith.” This is a Mormon trope designed to reassure people that what they are about to hear is consistent with the faith of their fathers. It is a package, and the whole package must be embraced, from Henry B Eyring (crying Eyring) and his typically tearful account of his forebears and the importance of genealogy, to Jeffrey R Holland’s call to “suffer the shame of the world,” for the Mormon faith.

So lets tick some boxes and see what Mormonism teaches because the Mormon Church has apparently shifted its position on many issues in recent times:

Added Upon

It was Henry B Eyring who, speaking of covenants, reminded listeners that blessings are predicated upon their keeping those covenants. He spoke of our having had a life before this one with God in a pre-mortal state, which Mormons call the first estate, and as literal children of God. We are, according to Mormonism, the same species as God, gods in embryo and, as Mormonism has always taught, God is an exalted man. It is on this very site that a Mormon insisted that this is but a speculation about God’s nature. In this conference we can lay speculation aside and identify Mormon ‘truth.’

Here on earth we are in our second estate, Eyring insists, and we got here by being obedient in our first estate. Our eternal destiny is dependent on our continuing to keep covenants, from baptism to temple, till death.

President Eyring quotes the Mormon Book of Abraham:

And they who keep their first estate shall be added upon; and they who keep not their first estate shall not have glory in the same kingdom with those who keep their first estate; and they who keep their second estate shall have glory added upon their heads for ever and ever.” (Abraham 3:26)

The Mormon ‘scripture’ declares:

There is a law irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundation of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated-

And when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.(Doctrine and Covenants 130:20-21)

God’s ‘Plan of Happiness’

It was Neil L Anderson who, speaking of building a foundation on Christ, came up with the statement that has all the Mormon world buzzing. After much effort in the recent past to reach out to the gay community, he states clearly that civil law cannot change moral law – something with which we would agree – and that marriage is between one man and one woman – something else with which we would agree, although I question whether Joseph Smith and Brigham Young would.

His reason for insisting on this male/female partnership is the fulfilment of God’s great plan of happiness, the creator’s plan for his children to go through this testing second estate and prove worthy. You don’t hear so much these days about the ‘duty’ of having children to bring people from the spirit world (the first estate) to this (the second estate), with even Mormons being given licence to limit their family size, yet this is what is in view here. So we have a pre-mortal existence where we are literally spirit children of God, and a testing ground (this world) in which we prove ourselves fit and worthy to go on to receive glory for eternity.

Gethsemane

It was the aforementioned Carlos Amado who spoke movingly of Jesus going “to face his most demanding trial, in the Garden of Gethsemane, in all the loneliness he suffered the most intense agony, bleeding from every pore, in total submission to his Father he atoned for our sins…”

But it was in Gethsemane that Jesus, comforted by an angel, prepared for his most demanding trial on the cross. Remarkably, Mormons don’t lay great store by the cross of Christ. In a special broadcast in 2001 entitled Special Witnesses of Christ, in which Mormon ‘apostles and prophets’ testify to their faith, the cross is absent as the story leaps from the Garden to the tomb. You can read about this peculiar treatment of a key Christian and biblical doctrine on The Mormon Chapbook Nevertheless, the atonement achieves for everyone a general resurrection, which Mormons call ‘salvation,’ but what Christians call eternal life Mormons achieve by obedience not faith.

Carlos Amado goes on to describe Christ as spending three days setting up missionary work among the dead so that those who did not hear the Mormon ‘gospel’ in this life might have a chance to hear and accept it there. This raises, of course, the question of original sin and whether we are saved by the grace of God from a just but terrible punishment, or saved by hearing and having the sense to accept a message.

This is an issue with which some Christians struggle but lets be clear, we are not in a neutral place, innocents, until we accept or reject the Christian message, we are sinners bound for condemnation unless someone steps in and, by his grace, saves us. It is that saving that is the message, not some system of eternal attainment. Faith in Mormonism appears to be, not the Christian settled trust in the finished work of Christ on the cross, but a determined conviction that these Mormon teachings are true and should be acted upon in order to obtain blessing and glory.

Temples

There are now apparently 142 operating Mormon temples across the world we are informed. When all planned temples are completed that number will rise to 170. President Monson insists that Mormons are a temple-building people. Later it is Neil L Anderson who reminds us that it is in these “holy places” faithful Mormons are to stand and he celebrates the proliferation of temples since his youth. “The Lord has given this generation greater access to temples than any generation in the history of the world.” Both men overlook the fact that, in the history of the Bible, the only temple-building people of the sort described are the builders of the ziggurats on the plains of ancient Mesopotamia, out of which Abraham was called.

Prophets

Finally, we are reminded by Jeffrey R Holland that Mormons have prophets to guide and inspire. Referring to the spirit of this age he speaks of prophets that say pleasing things, that “not only don’t rock the boat, they don’t even row the boat,” the irony of which obviously escaped him. Mormon prophets these days appear to have a great deal of time on their hands – perhaps to open temples and shopping malls – as BYU and amateur Mormon apologists do most of the doctrinal heavy lifting.

Nevertheless, Mormons attend and/or listen to conference twice a year to gain the reassurance that, despite the fact their prophets don’t actually prophecy any more (don’t rock or row the boat), nevertheless they have prophets; that despite more recent public prevarication on the issue they can look forward to godhood as did their forebears; that regardless of more recent obfuscation on the subject they are of the same species as God, and God is an exalted man; that they have already proved ‘worthy’ as evidenced by their presence in this ‘second estate’; that by their obedience they can be entitled to blessings; that they can attain an eternity with God, not because of God’s undeserved grace, but because they have passed the test set for them by the one who was their literal father in the first place.

Grace

In all this, of course, one wonders what room there is for the grace of God. What significance has the sacrifice of Christ in a system where he conquers death without conquering for us the sin that brought death into the world. Where the problem is not our slavery to sin but the prospect of a test.

The Mormon answer is, once again, the squaring of a circle. In Mormon thought “We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, we are saved by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel” (third Article of Faith)

What is the point of the atonement if we are “saved by [our own] obedience?”

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

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

Lorenzo Snow

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jesus

              What does the Bible say About Resurrection?

Daniel 12:2 ESV / 10 helpful votes

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

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

We see this again in Matthew…

Matthew 25:31-34; 41

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

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

Two options, Eternal life or eternal fire!

And again…

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or John when he wrote…

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

 

Are we born into sin?

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

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

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

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

Joseph Fielding Smith…

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

The Bible …

Romans 5:12-17

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Verse 17…

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

but then what was Gods solution to this death?

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

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

 

What is Righteousness?

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/righteousness

right·eous  (rchs)

adj.

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

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

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

n.

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

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

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

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

I welcome your comments or feedback