Weak Arguments #4: “The Bible says that my sectarian, partisan, non-essential doctrine is the only true truth!” by Fred. W. Anson

 

An ongoing series of articles on some common and recurring weak arguments that Christians make against Mormonism.

by Fred W. Anson
The Argument:
“The Bible says that my sectarian, partisan, non-essential doctrine is the only true truth!”

First A Little Background:
A few years ago I was listening to the audio recordings from a conference that was held in Utah to educate Christians on the differences between Mormonism and Evangelical Christianity. The vast majority of the presentations were given in a non-partisan manner that any Christian – even non-Evangelical Christians – could agree with. That’s because they focused solely on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith or simply on the actual text of the Bible itself.

But then there was this one . . .

While the conference was non-denominational and featured speakers from a number of groups, it was held at a Calvary Chapel. One of the speakers (the wife in a husband and wife team who were members of the host church) gave a presentation that, frankly, had me grinding my teeth. That’s because she would first give the Mormon position on something, then say, “But the Bible says . . . ” and proceed to spew pure Calvary Chapel dogma and jargon (most notably on eschatology and demonology) as if it were absolutely and universally held to by all Christians in the way that she was articulating it.

By the end of the presentation, I was so frustrated by such overt “in yer face” bias that whenever she said, “But the Bible says . . . ” I would just talk over her voice on the recording with my own, “But Calvary Chapel says . . . ”

Now on the essential doctrines of the Christian faith there’s clearly no “wiggle room”. In their case, please dear reader, by all means, say “The Bible says” all you like – I do. However, on the non-essentials isn’t it better to preface our statements with a more gracious and qualified, “As I understand it the Bible says” or “To me the Bible says”? If that dear but sincerely misguided sister had done so, I would have had no issues with her presentation and wouldn’t be using it as an illustration of how not to do it.

Why It’s Weak:
1) It needlessly buries the essential doctrines of Christianity underneath a pile of non-essentials.
Here’s a question for my fellow Christian readers: Do you know what the essential doctrines of the Christian faith are? Do you know what the non-essentials are? If you were asked to do so could you list them? Please don’t feel embarrassed or ashamed if the answer to any or all of these questions is no – I didn’t have a good grasp on them when I entered Mormon Studies.  But boy, oh boy, did I learn them, and learn them fast – I had to in order to survive in this rough and tumble world where acrimony too often reigns supreme!

What was most helpful to me was Theologian Matt Slick’s primer on the subject where he explains:

The Bible itself reveals those doctrines that are essential to the Christian faith.  They are 1) the Deity of Christ, 2) Salvation by Grace, 3) Resurrection of Christ, 4) the gospel, and 5) monotheism.  These are the doctrines the Bible says are necessary.  Though there are many other important doctrines, these five are the ones that are declared by Scripture to be essential. [1]

Figure A: The Different Types of Essentials and Non-Essentials by C. Michael Patton (click on chart to enlarge)

Once again for emphasis, the essential doctrines of the Christian faith are as follows:

The Essential Doctrines of the Christian Faith
1) The Deity of Jesus Christ.
2) Salvation by Grace.
3) The resurrection of Jesus Christ.
4) The gospel of Jesus Christ, and
5) Monotheism.

On these issues there is – and always has been – unity among Christians. Simply put if you’re not aligned with these Biblical essentials you and/or your group isn’t aligned with orthodox, mainstream, Biblical Christianity. As Mr. Slick goes on to explain, “A non-regenerate person (i.e., Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness, atheist, Muslim), will deny one or more of these essential doctrines.   Please note that there are other derivative doctrines of scripture that become necessary also and the Trinity being one.”[2]

Everything else is non-essential.  As theologian C. Michael Patton’s chart illustrates (see Figure A above) that’s not to say that the non-essentials are unimportant, it’s just to say that the Bible is silent, ambiguous, or unclear on them – or that they’re not essential for salvation.  Therefore, there’s “wiggle room” on them. We’re talking about things like:

• Eschatology (how and when the end times will unfold, the rapture, the millenium, the role of Israel today, etc.)
• Earth Age (young v. old earth creationism, etc.)
• Bible translation preferences (King James v. modern translations, word-for-word v. thought-for-thought, etc.)
• Ecclesiology (church government models, the roles of clergy and laity, are Apostles and Prophets for today, etc.)
• Soteriological Systems (Arminianism v. Calvinism, etc.)
• Demonology (can a Christian have a demon or not, teachings on various kinds of spiritual warfare, etc.)
• Sacrament practices (wine v. grape juice, leavened v. unleavened bread, who can administer, etc.)
• Modes of baptism (sprinkling v. full immersion, infant baptism, etc.)
• Worship styles (liturgical  v. contemporary, hymns v. choruses, choirs, drums v. organs, etc.)
• The gifts of the Holy Spirit (tongues v. no tongues, cessationism v. continuationism, etc.)
• Worship observances (Sabbatarianism v. Sunday worship, observance of special holy days, etc.)
• Food and drink (consumption of alcohol v. abstinence,  kosher v. non-kosher food, etc.)
• Various do’s and don’ts (tobacco consumption, playing cards, dancing, makeup, “acceptable” dress, movies, etc.)
• Etc., etc., etc. This is far from an exhaustive or comprehensive list of Christian non-essentials – it seems endless at times!

On these issues there’s liberty. Christians can and will have legitimate differences of opinion and beliefs on them.  Thus for modern Christians, the words of 17th century Theologian Rupertus Meldenius still ring true today:

“In essentials, unity;
In non-essentials, liberty;
In all things, charity.

Or as Christian Theologian C. Michael Patton explains, “I often tell people that there are some things which I believe that I would die for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose an arm for; there are some things which I believe that I would lose a finger for; and then there are some things which I believe that I would not even get a manicure for.”[3]

2) It takes the focus off of the essentials.
Mormon Researcher Bill McKeever has a a great saying, “The gospel is offensive enough – let’s make sure we offend Mormons with what really matters!”  Arguing from dogma, preferences, and non-essential doctrine dilutes the message to Mormons that really matters, specifically:

1) Mormonism teaches another Jesus. Jesus Christ wasn’t the procreated son of God. He’s not an exalted man who acheived deification. He is, and always has been, God eternal. (The Deity of Jesus Christ)

2) Mormonism teaches another salvation – specifically that additional works (baptism into a church, temple ordinances, temple marriage, etc.) are all required for full salvation. Rather, the Bible teaches repeatedly that we are saved by grace through faith in the atoning work of Christ on the cross, plus nothing. (Salvation by Grace)

3) Mormonism gets Christ’s resurrection mostly right but is still wrong. Thank you our Mormon friends for getting the resurrection of Jesus Christ mostly right! However, the teaching that Jesus by his resurrection assures immortality in some heavenly kingdom for virtually everyone not isn’t biblical, it’s universalist heresy. (The resurrection of Jesus Christ)[4]

4) Mormonism teaches another gospel. Paul told us plainly what the gospel is: “Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.  Otherwise, you have believed in vain.  For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,”[5] Mormonism requires works in addition to Christ’s atonement (by making observance of laws and ordinances a salvific issue) thus nullifying God’s grace and putting Mormons back under the law. (The gospel of Jesus Christ)

5) Mormonism teaches a form of henotheistic idolatry. The Bible is clear from cover-to-cover that there is one – and only one – eternal being known as God who consists of three co-equal, co-eternal persons.  The Bible does not teach that there is a plurality of gods, be they exalted, deified men or otherwise. In fact, the Bible repeatedly denounces such teaching. (Monotheism)

6) Mormonism follows a false prophet. And of course, since all the errant, unbiblical, and heretical doctrines above were introduced to the world by Joseph Smith, the Christian message to Mormonism has also first and foremost always been:  You’re following a false prophet!  While that’s not directly tied to the essentials of the Christian faith it’s still an important Biblical distinctive[6] and has always been at the core of Christian arguments against Mormonism.

3) Making non-essentials essential is a very Mormon thing to do.
Stop for a moment and consider this:  Mormonism specializes in making molehills into mountains and non-essentials into essentials.  There’s a reason for this: Because systematic theology is impossible in Mormonism, it’s also impossible to distinguish essential doctrines from non-essential doctrines.[7]

To cite just one of many examples let’s consider baptism.  Mormonism is absolute in its belief that getting baptized in the right way, with the right words, by the right person, into the right church is essential for salvation. Consider this from the official LdS Church website:

Baptism by immersion in water by one having authority is the first saving ordinance of the gospel and is necessary for an individual to become a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and to receive eternal salvation. All who seek eternal life must follow the example of the Savior by being baptized and receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost.[8]

In fact, baptism is so critically important in Mormon soteriology that Latter-day Saints make proxy baptism for dead folks (that is, the ones who got it “wrong” while they were alive) a major focus and priority. They consume countless hours and expend untold resources in this effort. Just notice how in the following excerpt from the LdS Church website the criticality of proper baptism for the dead is dogmatically stressed:

Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John 3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. Individuals can then choose to accept or reject what has been done in their behalf.[9]

Yet, when one considers the Biblical record, baptism isn’t nearly as cut and dry – or even as vital – as Mormon doctrine makes it:

Requiring anything in addition to faith in Jesus Christ for salvation is a works-based salvation. To add anything to the gospel is to say that Jesus’ death on the cross was not sufficient to purchase our salvation. To say that baptism is necessary for salvation is to say we must add our own good works and obedience to Christ’s death in order to make it sufficient for salvation. Jesus’ death alone paid for our sins (Romans 5:8; 2 Corinthians 5:21). Jesus’ payment for our sins is appropriated to our “account” by faith alone (John 3:16; Acts 16:31; Ephesians 2:8-9). Therefore, baptism is an important step of obedience after salvation but cannot be a requirement for salvation.

Yes, there are some verses that seem to indicate baptism as a requirement for salvation. However, since the Bible so clearly tells us that salvation is received by faith alone (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5), there must be a different interpretation of those verses. Scripture does not contradict Scripture. In Bible times, a person who converted from one religion to another was often baptized to identify conversion. Baptism was the means of making a decision public. Those who refused to be baptized were saying they did not truly believe. So, in the minds of the apostles and early disciples, the idea of an un-baptized believer was unheard of. When a person claimed to believe in Christ, yet was ashamed to proclaim his faith in public, it indicated that he did not have true faith.[10]

Trust me, I have very strong opinions on baptism – how it should be done, when it should be done, etc. – and I’m pretty darn certain in my little mind that they’re utterly biblical and totally legitimate. However, I still qualify them as my opinion as such when dealing with Mormons because I understand that other Christians can have equally biblical, equally legitimate positions on baptism.   After all, I would much rather have them focusing on what really matters rather than whether someone should be dunked, sprinkled, or doused after they’ve accepted the gospel and made the decision to follow Jesus – wouldn’t you?

4) The argument unravels when and if it’s challenged by Christians who hold to equally valid positions.
This has happened to us all hasn’t it?  On more than one occasion when presenting an argument to a Mormon I’ve glossed poetic giving the logic, reason, and language of my church’s views on a particular non-essential of the faith. I’ve uttered the very words that gets the congregation nodding their heads in agreement and giving a hardy “Amen!” in our church.  I’ve been articulate. I’ve been clever. I’ve been witty.  I’ve been wise. And I’ve rested my case and sat back down smug and self-satisfied only to have some “loser” from another church or group say, “Really?  Well what about . . . ?” and then proceed to present evidence that demonstrates that’s there’s more than one valid view on the matter.  And so there I’ll sit, frowning with egg on my face while I watch while my beautiful and glorious “watertight” argument springs a leak right before my eyes (not to mention a worldwide audience). Yes folks, if humbling experiences build character then I must have a lot of character by now!

In the end, and to paraphrase and abuse an oft quoted Mormon colloquialism, “When your pastor has spoken all the thinking hasn’t been done!”  I know you love your pastor – I love mine too; I know you love your church – I love mine too, and; I know you think you’re absolutely, positively right in your theology – so do I.  But the fact remains that on the non-essentials there are a lot of good, thoughtful, valid positions out there. Getting too dogmatic on them will only get you in trouble in the marketplace of ideas and make you unpleasant to be around. If you do it too much, you’ll simply be ignored. And like I said, that egg on the face thing has happened to us all hasn’t it? So, perhaps when it comes to the non-essentials we would all do well to “curb our dogma”.

5) It reinforces the Mormon Great Apostasy dogma.
Most Mormons think and the LdS Church teaches that all Christians church other than theirs are a big ball of confusion. Consider this from the official LdS Church website:

During the Great Apostasy, people were without divine direction from living prophets. Many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people to the true knowledge of God the Father and Jesus Christ.[11]

Public bickering in front of Mormon just validates and reinforces this stereotype and prejudice.

Further, watching Christians do their “in house” debating over non-essentials on Mormon discussion boards is what some (manipulative) Mormons live for. I’m an administrator on several Mormon themed discussion boards and I have seen more than one Mormon deliberately bait the Calvinists to get them arguing with the Arminians (or vice versa) simply so they can sit back and watch the Christian fur flying and get the heat off of the errors of Mormonism.  They love it because the spatting, hair pulling, caterwauling cat fight the Christians are giving to a worldwide audience is something that they can point to and (incorrectly) say, “See what I mean? Mormons never bicker like this! We have a living prophet to guide us! We have unity, peace, and serenity in our church! We’re homogenized and boring – and we love it that way!”

The Stronger Arguments:
Normally at this point in the articles in this series we provide a series of suggested arguments to use instead of the weak argument that was originally presented.  However, this article is really more of an introduction to an overall problem that we see in weak arguments that Christians regularly make – just go onto a Mormon themed discussion board on Facebook after you’re done reading this and within minutes you’ll see what I mean.

Coming articles will echo this article in that we will present some common weak arguments that we’ve seen regularly that fall into the general category of arguing dogmatically over non-essentials.

That said, it should also be said that strong arguments against Mormonism are always rooted and grounded firmly in the essentials of the Christian faith.  Specifically, strong arguments will always be some variation on the themes we introduced earlier in this article:

1) Mormonism teaches another Jesus.
2) Mormonism teaches another salvation.
3) Mormonism gets Christ’s resurrection mostly right but is still wrong.
4) Mormonism teaches another gospel.
5) Mormonism teaches polytheism.
6) Mormonism follows a false prophet.

Like the notes in a musical theme these six points can be woven into a seemingly endless array of strong, persuasive arguments. Use them skillfully and creatively and your arguments against Mormonism will be as moving as a Mozart symphony. But if you deviate too far from them, we’re talking Spike Jones.

NOTES
[1] Matt Slick, “Essential Doctrines of Christianity”, CARM website. While Mr. Slick’s article is an excellent short vernacular primer, C. Michael Patton’s “Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell” article is the better resource for those seeking a fuller, more nuanced understanding of the subject. Finally for those who find Mr. Slick’s outline format a bit too cryptic and Mr. Patton’s article too long should consider the short but insightful “What are the essentials of the Christian faith?” article on the “Got Questions?” website instead.

[2] Ibid, Slick

[3] C. Michael Patton, “Essentials and Non-Essentials in a Nutshell”, Credo House website

[4] Yes, Mormonism gets this one mostly right – let’s give some credit where credit is due. Never-the-less, Theologian Rob Bowman of the Institute for Religious Research (IRR) explains how and why Mormonism still manages to get the resurrection of Christ wrong:

According to the LDS Church, Jesus’ death and resurrection guarantees resurrection to immortal life for practically everybody—Christian or not, moral or not—in one of three heavenly kingdoms. (The only exception are the “sons of perdition,” incorrigibly evil people that include some ex-Mormons.) We cannot discuss the three Mormon heavenly kingdoms here, but the Bible is clear that the wicked will be resurrected only to face, in their bodies, their condemnation to eternal punishment (Dan. 12:2; Matt. 10:28; 25:46; John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). They derive no benefit from Christ’s atoning death. Only the righteous “in Christ”—those who belong to Christ—will be made alive and given immortality (1 Cor. 15:22-23, 53-54).

Finally, although the LDS Church affirms that Jesus ascended bodily into Heaven and will return bodily to the earth one day, it wrongly claims that Jesus has visited the earth bodily on other occasions between his ascension and second coming. The Book of Mormon claims that Jesus visited the Nephites in the Americas several separate times, destroyed whole cities of the wicked, preached to the righteous, and formed a church for them. In the First Vision story, Joseph Smith claimed that Jesus (and God the Father!) appeared personally to him to instruct him to join none of the existing churches. These LDS claims may seem innocent enough, but their significance is that they call into question the sufficiency and, ultimately, the reliability of the New Testament revelations of Jesus Christ.
(Rob Bowman, “The Mormon View of Jesus Christ: The Bottom-Line Guide to Mormonism, Part 5”, IRR website article)

[5] 1 Corinthians 15:1-4 (New International Version)

[6] Please consider Deuteronomy 13:1-5 in light of this which says:

If there arises among you a prophet or a dreamer of dreams, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods’—which you have not known—‘and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams, for the Lord your God is testing you to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. You shall walk after the Lord your God and fear Him, and keep His commandments and obey His voice; you shall serve Him and hold fast to Him. But that prophet or that dreamer of dreams shall be put to death, because he has spoken in order to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of bondage, to entice you from the way in which the Lord your God commanded you to walk. So you shall put away the evil from your midst.
(New King James Version)

[7] Systematic Theology is impossible in Mormonism because any established theological system or doctrine within that system can be overturned at any time via a new revelation from the current “Living Prophet”.  The latest example of this is Official Declaration 2 which overturned long standing doctrine which banned Negroes from holding the Mormon Priesthood.  Due to the Mormon doctrine that new continuing revelation from the Mormon god can contradict his past revelation(s) no Mormon doctrine is safe from such potential action. Mormon history is rife with examples which BYU Professor Charles Harrell has done a masterful job of documenting in his two-volume, “This Is My Doctrine” book series. (link to Amazon pages for these titles: Volume 1; Volume 2)

Hence the saying:
“As heresy is, Mormon doctrine once was.
As Mormon doctrine is, heresy will it become.”

[8] Official LdS Church website, “Topics: Baptism”

[9] Official LdS Church website, “Topics: Baptisms for the Dead”

[10] “Got Questions?” website, “Is baptism necessary for salvation?”

[11] Official LdS Church website, “Apostasy”

 

This article can also be found at Beggars Bread Blog.

General Conference October 2014. Sunday Morning Session, by Bobby Gilpin

I think the thing that always strikes me very quickly whenever I listen to any general conference talk is this, where is the revelation? Where is ANYTHING that is new. It just does not happen. There are thousands of missionaries around the world telling people how great it is that the LDS church has a modern-day Prophet, that the canon of scripture is not closed, and that God loves us too much to leave us without the modern revelation that we so need today.

Yet none of this is anywhere to be found, least of all in one of these sessions. From what I can tell general conference exists for 3 purposes.

1, To keep people active in the church.

2, To respond, usually indirectly to criticism or comments being made about the church.

3, To keep people obedient to the church.

This is it, and in this session this is as clear as any other.

The first talk of the Sunday Morning Session is by Henry B Eyring first counsellor to the presidency, and it is on Continuing Revelation. 

Eyring says this:

 

President Boyd K. Packer described that identifying mark of the true Church this way: “Revelation continues in the Church: the prophet receiving it for the Church; the president for his stake, his mission, or his quorum; the bishop for his ward; the father for his family; the individual for himself.”

Nowhere in this talk does Eyring give an example of a Prophecy from current Mormon Prophet Thomas S Monson. Toward the end of his talk he says this

God pours out revelation, through the Holy Ghost, on His children. He speaks to His prophet on the earth, who today is Thomas S. Monson. I witness that he holds and exercises all the keys of the priesthood on earth.

Can any Mormon give me an example of when this has happened? The only thing I can think of that has happened of any significance under Monson’s tenure  is reducing the age of missionaries. Which is a procedural change at best. Right now around the world we are facing some of the hardest issues ever, yet the Mormon Prophet and therefore the Mormon God, are silent on the matter, this to me and I hope others, speaks volumes.

 

The second talk is called Sustaining the Prophets and is by Elder Russell M Nelson, of the Quorum of the twelve Apostles. 

This talk very strongly fits with my point number 2 above of what general conference does. General conference will indirectly respond to what’s being said about the church and its leaders, but will very rarely affirm that what is being said is the case.

For a number of years now there has been much discussion on whether Thomas S Monson is suffering from dementia. Monson is 87 years old and whether you believe he is a prophet or not, you will agree that he is human like the rest of us, subject to the same weaknesses, illnesses etc as the rest of us, so as a quick disclaimer even if this is true I don’t see this as a deal breaker as to whether the LDS “gospel” is true or not, however I wonder why this cannot be specifically and clearly addressed.

 

John Dehlin of the Mormon Stories podcast said this:

I’ve probably talked to 50 people who work directly with the church in some significant capacity who all confirm that President Monson has some form of dementia and that unless he’s got handlers around him, and unless he’s reading a speech, he’s unmanageable and incoherent, and you know that doesn’t mean he can’t be friendly to a child and wink to a crowd or wiggle his ears or read a teleprompter, but in terms of really managing the church, he’s over 90.(1)

This talk never affirms this is going on but it is filled with the idea that even if the Prophet is unwell the church is ok, here’s a quote. (bold added by me)

The Apostle with the longest seniority in the office of Apostle presides.¹⁵That system of seniority will usually bring older men to the office of President of the Church. It provides continuity, seasoned maturity, experience, and extensive preparation, as guided by the Lord.

The Church today has been organized by the Lord Himself. He has put in place a remarkable system of governance that provides redundancy and backup. That system provides for prophetic leadership even when the inevitable illnesses and incapacities may come with advancing age.Counterbalances and safeguards abound so that no one can ever lead the Church astray. Senior leaders are constantly being tutored such that one day they are ready to sit in the highest councils. They learn how to hear the voice of the Lord through the whisperings of the Spirit.

While serving as First Counselor to President Ezra Taft Benson, who was then nearing the end of his mortal life, President Gordon B. Hinckley explained:

“The principles and procedures which the Lord has put in place for the governance of His church make provision for any … circumstance. It is important … that there be no doubts or concerns about the governance of the Church and the exercise of the prophetic gifts, including the right to inspiration and revelation in administering the affairs and programs of the Church, when the President may be ill or is not able to function fully.

So we see here Nelson affirming that leaders are only there because God has put them there. That illnesses are inevitable given the age of the leaders, and not to worry if this happens. I think for now many LDS members are unaware or unconvinced of Monson’s dementia, and many are aware, this comment speaks to both of those sets of people while never affirming or denying this to be the case, this is a very common general conference theme.

Recently Thomas S Monson was pictured meeting a stake president.

This is obviously without the makeup that will go with a general conference day. There is nothing particularly shocking about this picture, it just simply shows a man who is getting very old. As we all will over time, however Nelson also makes this point.

 

The ways of the Lord are different from the ways of man. Man’s ways remove people from office or business when they grow old or become disabled. But man’s ways are not and never will be the Lord’s ways. Our sustaining of prophets is a personal commitment that we will do our utmost to uphold their prophetic priorities. Our sustaining is an oath-like indication that we recognize their calling as a prophet to be legitimate and binding upon us.

 

It seems to be saying that Monson cannot step down, that he must stay in the role till death. This saddens me a little for this man, his dementia if he truly has it is only going to manifest more over time, yet in the process he has to stay the at least named leader for this church, I struggle to see why this is such a good thing that makes the LDS church so unlike the so-called “man’s ways”.

 

This talk is all about the fact that the LDS church leaders know that this information is getting out, and so they want people to not worry, the church is still in good hands. Fulfilling my points 1, 2 and 3.

 

Nelson ends with this. (bold added)

 

Last year, when President Monson reached the milestone of 5 years of service as President of the Church, he reflected on his 50 years of apostolic service and made this statement: “Age eventually takes its toll on all of us. However, we join our voices with King Benjamin, who said, … ‘I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind; yet I have been chosen … and consecrated by my father, … and have been kept and preserved by his matchless power, to serve you with all the might, mind and strength which the Lord hath granted unto me’ (Mosiah 2:11).”

President Monson continued: “Despite any health challenges that may come to us, despite any weakness in body or mind, we serve to the best of our ability. I assure you that the Church is in good hands. The system set up for the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve [Apostles] assures [us] that it will always be in good hands and that, come what may, there is no need to worry or to fear. Our Savior, Jesus Christ, whom we follow, whom we worship, and whom we serve, is ever at the helm.”

President Monson, we thank you for those truths! And we thank you for your lifetime of exemplary and dedicated service. May I presume to speak for the members of the Church throughout the world in our united and sincere expression of gratitude for you. We honor you! We love you! We sustain you, not only with uplifted hands but with all our hearts and consecrated efforts. Humbly and fervently, “we ever pray for thee, our prophet dear”! In the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

The Mormon Church is, at its heart a man exalting organization, Jesus Christ is an after thought, I see this section of the talk as a clear affirmation of this. Why would we ever thank a man for any truths? Ever? It just would not happen. We see in the New Testament from the Apostle Paul a constant exalting of God. A constant grateful heart to God, for all things, here’s some examples.

Romans 1:8

First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.

Romans 1:21

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Romans 7:25

I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

Romans 14:6

He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth Godthanks.

1 Corinthians 1:4

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

1 Corinthians 14:18

I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all:

2 Corinthians 2:14

Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.

2 Corinthians 8:16

But thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care into the heart of Titus for you.

2 Corinthians 9:11

Being enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving to God.

2 Corinthians 9:12

For the administration of this service not only supplieth the want of the saints, but is abundant also by many thanksgivings unto God;

We thank God for the blessings God gives, we thank God for the blessings that God gives through people. All things are by, from, and to God. No human no matter how significant their position, or great their gifting deserves the thanks and praise that only belongs to God.

 

For the sake of time I am going to jump straight to the last talk. Given by President Thomas S Monson and called Ponder the Path of thy feet.

 

Now to be fair I think on the whole this seemed a fine talk, sure terms like Exaltation that are used are ones that open theological minefields, however that aside, and casting aside the regular emphasis on obedience could take us into the faith/works debate, there were some good points made, such as:

As we strive to place Christ at the center of our lives by learning His words, by following His teachings, and by walking in His path, He has promised to share with us the eternal life that He died to gain. There is no higher end than this, that we should choose to accept His discipline and become His disciples and do His work throughout our lives. Nothing else, no other choice we make, can make of us what He can.

Sounds good to me, however what did strike me was that this was a very general, safe talk. Nothing new, certainly nothing revelatory, and it could have been given any time throughout the history of Mormonism with no real relevance to a specific time.

 In recent years Monson has seems to have started a habit of repeating talks that he gave years ago. In the Priesthood session this year he gave the talk “Guided safely home”. This has remarkable similarities to the 1982 talk Sailing Safely the seas of life.  There is some further discussion on this with other examples here.

 

I think there is only more of this to come and that this is a sign of Monson’s dementia. From some research I have found that familiarity is essential for people with this condition. Doing new things is very difficult and the more familiar surroundings/circumstances a person is in the better, see an article on this here. President Monson, has been giving general conference talks for many years, this is a familiar surrounding to him, I think giving him talks with content he has given before, with likely some re watching of these talks before conference will only help him carry out his role with this condition. However it does seem these days that he rarely makes an appearance otherwise.

As I said earlier this point alone is not a deal breaker for the truthfulness of the LDS message, however it is, I feel a cruel and irresponsible move to  have someone in this position still be expected to carry out this role. It is dishonest of the leadership to not spell this out, rather just giving a pep talk that if something is wrong you do not have to worry.

 

In some senses this would be an opportunity to show the true prophetic gift of the Mormon prophet, that even with this condition God is giving him clear prophetic messages for the LDS church. With respect I really would not hold your breath for this. The reality is that because President Monson is not a true Prophet, dementia or no dementia, it really does not make any difference if he has this illness, as nothing new was coming anyway.

Notes.

(1) http://www.wheatandtares.org/14846/does-pres-monson-have-dementia/

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.”

It’s a miracle there’s ANY forgiveness! A review of Spencer W. Kimball’s The Miracle of Forgiveness

The Joseph Smith Papyri [Book of Abraham]

If there is one thing that struck me at the recent British Pageant, its how much Mormons often don’t know about the history of their movement.

One of the more significant issues in Mormon history, is that a while ago much of the Papyri that Joseph Smith used to translate the Book of Abraham was found. The findings of this have been a life changing issue for many.

This is a really good video explaining that issue. I would really encourage anyone not aware of this to give this video a watch and have a think for yourself.

Towards a More Fully Representative History of the British Mormon Experience

With the upcoming Mormon Pageant in Preston, England, it’s a wonderful opportunity to consider a more complete account of the lives of those first British Latter-Day Saint converts.

I believe that the more information one has about an event or period in history then the better one can understand what really occurred.

Just like being a detective or forensic investigator, the more accounts we have to consider, the closer we come to the truth of the matter.

Chris Ralph has studied the lives of the first converts to Mormonism in Britain to reveal the bigger picture.

Authored by Christopher Ralph. Chris has a Masters Degree in History from the University of the West of England, (2011). His dissertation was on the subject of “Bristol’s Earliest Mormon Converts”.

PART ONE: Truth Will Prevail

On 19th July 1837 Heber Chase Kimball and six other elders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, (commonly known as “Mormons”), disembarked at Liverpool. This was the first time Mormon missionaries had been sent anywhere outside of North America. They made their way to Preston a few days later and there saw a political banner proclaiming ‘Truth Will Prevail’, for they had arrived in the midst of a General Election campaign following the recent accession of the 18 year old Queen Victoria. This, they felt, was an excellent omen that their efforts in spreading the LDS gospel in that place would meet with success, and the political motto was duly adopted as their own.

Heber Chase Kimball, who led the first Mormon mission to Britain in 1837

So began an attempted Mormon Conquest of The British Isles, one which enjoyed notable success in many small pockets here and there over the next fifteen years. By 1851 there were approximately 32,000 Mormons in this land, which represented two-thirds of the global Mormon population at that time. However, the British LDS church was viewed not as an established outpost, but merely as a seed-bed, a resource for providing a steady supply of converts to populate and strengthen the American church, whose headquarters by 1847 were relocated from Nauvoo, Illinois to the Salt Lake Valley in the Rocky Mountains. British Converts soon learnt that their new faith required them, as soon as they were able, to leave behind their native land and non-Mormon family members, and travel to that Land of Zion, where God was establishing a theocracy which would govern the Earth for a thousand years; they were taught that the time was near at hand when national governments would fail, anarchy would reign, and no safety would be found outside of Zion. The message Heber Kimball and his immediate successors delivered was that an angel had in their generation appeared to a latter-day prophet Joseph Smith, and the Lord’s chosen people were being gathered one last time into Zion. Soon, with fiery judgments, would come the winding up of all other false systems. Salvation was to be had only in Mormonism. It was the only means available to mankind which God now authorised. All other creeds were an abomination in his sight.

This sense of extreme urgency resonated with the unsettled times through which many of the British hearers of this message were living, for it was an age of upheaval, most noticeably in terms of population movement. The younger elements of the British rural labour force were steadily being enticed by higher wages to the new industrial centres which were located within larger towns and cities. Tens of thousands were annually relocating to urban areas, where, in addition to higher wages, they also encountered indifferent working conditions, cramped housing, poor sanitation, ill-health, and large fluctuating impersonal communities where crime proliferated, all far different from the small familiar rural hamlets and villages they had left behind. There had not been such wholesale social change for centuries, and for many it signalled that the old order, (England’s green and pleasant land), was being overtaken by the dark Satanic mills of a new uncaring age, and that the world was indeed stumbling towards its end. This belief was especially rife within non-conformist churches, and some, notably Primitive Methodism, were looking to re-establish the church organisation found in the New Testament. Mormonism gave spiritual voice to all these inner forebodings and aspirations, offering new hope, and a practical solution in the form of a Zionist escape route.

Modern LDS artistic representation of early missionaries among their British converts

However, it is not enough to observe Mormonism’s spread in Britain simply in terms of a general top-down overview. In order to appreciate its true impact, the history of British Mormonism must be seen through the eyes of those who actually experienced at first hand this seemingly familiar, yet in reality this wildly different, new gospel. A ‘history from below’ as lived by the rank and file participants, is only way to appreciate events.

The modern LDS church itself promotes a shallow, glossy view of those early times, and perhaps that is not entirely surprising, for it is charged with promoting what many now consider to be a questionable product to prospective tithe-paying devotees, at the same time as attempting to retain within its head-count a rapidly growing number of troubled and disaffected members. The 21st century LDS church is in many respects very unlike its 19th century fore-runner which speculatively sent missionaries to Britain in 1837, although in one important respect it is its equal: it still does not present a full account of itself. Today, however, the LDS church is sophisticated, wealthy, business-savvy, PR-conscious, and carefully selective in which face it presents to the general public. It needs to be because in this age of rapid information exchange, theoretically all have reasonable access to uncomfortable LDS historical information, (which it has always sought to hide from investigators and its rank and file members), and so if the mission of the church is to succeed, the value of objectivity must be downplayed, and emphasis constantly placed upon comforting faith-promoting narratives, even though those narratives are typically unsupported by hard evidence. The church these days therefore teaches a rather diluted and sanitized gospel, still often drawing, nevertheless, upon early pioneer stories of faith and courage in adversity, while ignoring the many untold stories of those whose lives were wrecked or impoverished through their contact with early Mormonism. This is done, of course, in order to project an illusion of continuity and institutional wellbeing.

Only one-quarter of all British converts in the 19th century, managed to fulfil the desired objective of emigrating to America. Of those, a good many did not manage to complete the onward journey to Salt Lake City, and of those who did, a significant proportion became disillusioned, but found themselves so financially and spiritually mired in a strange and intolerant society, that they could not easily escape. They discovered when it was already too late, that ‘Zion’ was not as had been advertised. When the modern LDS church speaks therefore about its wonderful pioneer heritage, it attempts to infer that its neatly packaged accounts smoothed out through repeated telling, are representative of the whole, when in fact they are representative of perhaps no more than 15%. As marketing is the main purpose of the exercise, the version of early Mormon history told by the church today cannot be other than distorted, if not actually by deliberate sanitization, then by the inadequate sample size upon which that history relies. It is not good enough to say that the other 85% do not matter because they lacked faith. We cannot dismiss them in that way and pretend the resulting account is correct simply because we want it to be. The 85% had stories to tell as well, and good reasons for not being among the 15%, and those stories and reasons are as valid and material as any other.

In order to address this significant imbalance therefore, and very much in the spirit of ‘Truth will Prevail’, some of the alternative experiences which have been recorded and researched will follow. These also are a large part of British Mormonism’s past, and deserve to be considered in any British Mormon history or pageant, alongside the 15% sample which the LDS church might choose to showcase.

Take for example the story of George Darling Watt, who was the first man to be baptised in England. The LDS church provides a very interesting account of how Watt won a foot race to the banks of the River Ribble in order to be accorded that unique privilege. The story is designed to convey the fervour of those early converts. However, the equally interesting fact that Watt was later authorised by Brigham Young to take as a plural wife Watt’s own younger half-sister, Jane Brown, (they shared a mother, Mary Ann Wood), and that they became parents of three children, is seldom if ever discussed, even though that also illustrates the degree of fervour with which some accepted the Mormon gospel.

George Darling Watt, the first man baptized in England

One should ask perhaps, why would the LDS church today avoid sharing such an interesting piece of information with its members and the general public? Could it be that it is embarrassed? The early Mormon leaders certainly were not. In what Apostle Wilford Woodruff described at the time (1854) as “the greatest sermon that ever was delivered to the Latter Day Saints since they have been a people,” Brigham Young announced: “I believe in Sisters marrying brothers, and brothers having their sisters for Wives.”

Of course Brigham also taught the Latter-day Saints that the Sun is inhabited, that a man’s glory in the next world depends upon how many wives and children he has in this, that those who enter into mixed race marriages should suffer the penalty of death for breaking God’s law, and that Adam, the first human, is the God we must worship. He taught much which is no longer believed, and yet for over thirty years, (1844-1877), his utterances were God’s word to the Latter-day Saints. Brigham Young was God’s mouthpiece, and latter-day saints were expected to conform their lives accordingly. One wonders how many lived and died actually placing all their trust and belief in such teachings. It is rather a disturbing thought. And even today Brigham Young is revered by Latter-day Saints as having been a prophet, seer and revelator, but most current members have little if any idea of the strange worldview which was forced upon their predecessors.

(to be continued)

Teachings of President Lorenzo Snow chapter 14 With God all things are Possible by Gary Carter

Chapter 14 in the Teachings of Lorenzo Snow, ‘With God All Things Are Possible’, is one of the shorter chapters we shall be investigating but it does contain some interesting topics that grab the attention of its readers. As is similar with the other chapters we have reviewed, there is a lot of theological material that does appear similar to standard Christian teaching, but as is the same with the other chapters, there are glaring issues that need addressing within Snow’s thoughts. These issues are centered on the idea of past experience as being key to salvation. This raises many issues from the lesser issue of predestination (something that is denied by the LDS) and the much greater issue if works being involved with salvation, in this case works before salvation.

They key quotation for this chapter is as follows:

‘It is a glorious work that we are engaged in. It is the work of the Almighty; and He has selected the men and women whom He knows from past experience will carry out his purposes’.

This raises the first and lesser issue of election and predestination. Mormonism doesn’t conform to the Calvinistic approach to election. The Bible Dictionary on the LDS website states that ‘the concept held by many that God unconditionally elected some to be saved and some to be damned without any effort, action, or choice on their part is not correct, for the scriptures teach that it is only by faith and obedience that one’s calling and election is made sure (2 Pet. 1:10-11; D&C 131:5 – relevant quotes below)’.

Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. (2 Peter 2:10-11)

The more sure word of prophecy means a man’s knowing that he is sealed up unto eternal life, by revelation and the spirit of prophecy, through the power of the Holy Priesthood. (D&C 131:5)

This point is further explained in the section on the Covenant of Abraham as being ‘an heir to the Abrahamic covenant’ does not make one a ‘chosen person’. The election that Mormonism subscribes to is the ‘election of grace’ as described in Doctrines and Covenants 84:99 which allows for humanity to respond through free will, something much more akin to Arminianism (see quote below).

The Lord hath brought again Zion;

The Lord hath redeemed his people, Israel,

According to the election of grace,

Which was brought to pass by the faith

And covenant of their fathers. (D&C 84:99)

This may seem entirely peripheral when we read this chapter but it does add some key background information for the understanding of this chapter. If Mormonism, including Lorenzo Snow, denies Calvinistic election then any account of ‘past experience’ proves problematic. Past experience, as understood within Calvinism, could be considered as a proof that somebody was elected before they knew they were elected. Conventional Arminianism wouldn’t argue that ‘past experience’ would contribute to salvation, as it is the decision to follow Christ with your free will that is crucial. To argue that God selects men and women based upon their experience before the salvation implies that works based salvation, something that we have already discussed in previous chapters, is also important and necessary before the salvific proclamation of Christ.

This is an important claim so it is important to link in the context of the paragraph that our focus quote comes from. In the concluding section of this chapter, Lorenzo Snow is arguing that when doing God’s work, we need the help of God, in and of itself an inoffensive remark. Snow opines on the great problem of those who proclaim to follow Jesus and do his work, a comment that is not untrue for Christianity, which states that those who claim to be doing the work of Christ so often forget to look to Christ and seek his help to do this work. In making the call to stay closer to God in doing his work, Snow argues that those selected to his work are based on ‘past experience’, in essence, one’s prior ‘holiness’ is key to whether one can be an ‘heir of the Abrahamic covenant’ which is necessary for salvation.

This is something that is not in line with the biblical understanding of grace especially when we consider two of the key New Testamental figures, Paul and Peter. Paul openly says that he was a great persecutor of the Church and this is acknowledged by independent sources such as Luke, the author of Acts. (Acts 9:4; Acts 22:3-5; Galatians 1:13). Peter’s actions prior to being given the responsibility of ‘feeding Jesus’ lambs’ are not exactly glowing. He panics and loses faith when he is walking on water and he denies Jesus three times in one evening (Matthew 14:30; Luke 22:60). Even though Jesus predicts this, a potential defence for Snow, it does go against what Snow argues for in this paragraph. Peter’s prior actions do not encourage us that he would willingly carry out God’s purposes or ‘have the bottle’ to carry out God’s purposes. Paul was an open persecutor of the Church, his prior actions do not lend themselves to the idea that these actions were signs pointing to salvation. Snow seems to have forgotten these crucial examples in his arguments for ‘past experience’ as being a key part of the salvific working of Jesus.

The influence of work-based salvation can also be seen on pages 178-179. Snow states that the Mormon religion has a ‘certain course of conduct that no other religion requires of its adherents’. Snow argues that these commandments are impossible to adhere to without the power of God. This is, in theory, something that Christianity could agree with but the undertones are that it is perfectly possible to adhere to the law exactly once we have the assistance of the Holy Spirit. The implication is that it possible to completely overcome sin in Mormon thinking. This is something that is not denied by the LDS in their theology of progressing to the celestial kingdom and to godhood. This is an idea that, as explained in previous articles, Christianity cannot accept as Christianity professes salvation is by the grace of Jesus Christ alone and not by works.

What can we say in conclusion? We can see as we follow through Snow’s work and thoughts that each chapter contains a lot of material that is orthodox within Christianity. It is perfectly true and correct to proclaim that with God all things are possible. It is perfectly true and correct to say that to do the work of God and these ‘miraculous things’ that we need the Holy Spirit living and working within us. What is not perfectly true and correct to say is that one’s actions and holiness affects whether one will be given the Holy Spirit, as seen with the examples of Paul and Peter. It is also possible to see that this approach of Snow perhaps contradicts the official LDS doctrine as God using past experience to establish who shall receive salvation on earth seems like a very Calvinistic idea, a theology that the LDS church rejects absolutely. What is clear however is that Snow’s thoughts are still rooted in the salvation by works foundation, something that is against Christian teachings and is not compatible with the Christian faith.

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

General Conference, April 2013 Sunday Afternoon Review, by Russ Bales and Jenna Wood

A review of Elder Holland’s LDS General Conference speech titled “Lord, I Believe” on April 7, 2013, Salt Lake City, Utah

By Russ Bales, Evangelical Christian and Jenna Wood, Christian and former Mormon

 

Elder Holland opened his speech with the comment, “Honestly acknowledge your questions and your concerns, but first and forever fan the flame of your faith, because all things are possible to them that believe.”

Some questions immediately come to mind.

•    Believe in what? Will a man who calls himself a prophet of God proceed to the core of the gospel message which is belief and trust in Jesus and forgiveness of sins?

•    Or will his talk be designed to soothe the minds of those who are questioning their faith in the Mormon Church?

It was not unexpected nor surprising that the thrust of Holland’s speech focused on the latter. The Mormon Church is currently experiencing an exodus from its ranks unparalleled in the Church’s history since the Kirtland Bank failure. It naturally follows that an address to all Mormon believers would seek to reassure the faithful that all will be well if faithful Mormons will heed the counsel of the prophets.

Elder Marlin Jensen, a General Authority of the LDS Church and Executive Director of the Church History Department, was asked the question on January 31, 2012, “Did the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints know that members are ‘leaving in droves?’”

“We are aware,” he said according to a tape recording of his unscripted remarks. “And I’m speaking of the 15 men that are above me in the hierarchy of the church. They really do know and they really care,” Reuters article

Elder Holland encourages Mormons to “Stand strong until additional knowledge comes.” Holland is clearly acknowledging that many Mormons are starting to question the veracity of the claims of the LDS church. Holland is clearly admonishing the flock to stand unwavering during troubling times.

Holland states,

“Be candid about your questions as you need to be. But don’t let those questions stand in the way of faith working its miracle.”

Holland makes a sober point insofar that we all do well to exercise faith. It takes faith to believe in an unseen God. Our faith in God is bolstered by the veracity of biblical history. Christianity is a reasonable faith. It is reasonable to consider that an intelligent designer created everything that is.

Where these writers would diverge from Holland’s admonition to not allow nagging questions to get in the way of faith is when the Mormon church asks its adherents to ignore the mountain of evidence that goes against the claims of the LDS church. For example, the uniquely LDS scripture called The Book of Abraham has been examined by several renowned Egyptologists. (See the video documentary) The consensus is unanimous. It is a book that isn’t what it claims to be.

As another example, the history of the Church itself is becoming problematic for many Mormons. The LDS Church doesn’t make it readily known that its prophet, Joseph Smith, married at least 33 women. 11 of those women were already married to living husbands. Such facts should be considered and such facts reveal the LDS church’s claims to be extremely problematic.

One last example is the race issue in the Mormon Church. The Church banned blacks from full membership in its priesthood from 1830 to 1978. Such things should cause Mormons to question the claims of the LDS Church and in no way should an alleged prophet of God encourage them to, “…hold fast to what you already know and stand strong until additional knowledge comes” when in actuality the LDS Church isn’t providing that additional knowledge. They’re not providing a public response to those nagging questions.

The knowledge of LDS claims are on the table. All one has to do is simply use an internet search engine to examine LDS claims. LDS leaders aren’t answering. They’re leaving their flock without answers to these hard questions and all the while repeating the mantra: just have faith.

Determining truth is important. Vitally important. What we all want most, next to being loved, is truth. No one wants to be lied to by the auto mechanic. No one expects their religious leaders to cover up facts. The Mormon Church, however, is unfortunately adept at doing that.

Determining truth is as simple as opening God’s Word. When the apostle Paul preached about Jesus, the Bereans in the Book of Acts didn’t merely take Paul’s word for it. They compared what he said to that which has been previously revealed:

“These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.” Acts 17:11

Regarding truth, Dave Hunt of The Berean Call states:

Truth is independent of time, space, and matter, and never changes. It has no location in the physical universe; it exists in the nonphysical realm of the soul and spirit. The indisputable fact that the brain is not the mind, with which we understand truth, provides one of the simplest proofs that we are nonphysical and eternal beings living temporarily in physical bodies. This solemn fact raises a question that most do not like to face. Preferring to give their attention to pleasures and plans related to this temporal world of the five senses, that which is of paramount importance is put off to “a convenient season” (Acts 24:25), which never comes. Every person must answer the great question: Where will my soul and spirit (the real “I” that is my unique self) be when this temporary dwelling in which I have lived these few years lies “moulding in the grave?”

Members of the LDS religion are warned constantly that if something goes against the teachings of the LDS doctrines and Prophets, then it is a deception and of Satan. Remember that Satan can (and does indeed) use facts to deceive! Satan abuses the facts of what one believes, even partial truths, and then distorts the interpretation of those facts and truths to weave a deception. Holland’s use of Jesus’ own words to try and distort the truth an interpretation of what Jesus was actually saying when he said,

“If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.”

Jesus uses this parable not to imply that our “faith of a mustard seed” can move mountains and uproot trees by faith. No one can do such things, no matter how great their faith. The key to understanding the passages is the nature of faith, which is a gift from God.

The power of faith reflects the omnipotent nature of the God who bestows faith on His own to make the point that little is much when it comes from God. The mustard seed in the parable grows to be a huge tree, representing the tiny beginnings of Christianity when just a few disciples began to preach and teach the gospel. Eventually the kingdom grew to huge proportions, encompassing the entire world and spreading over centuries.

Holland used this parable of Jesus to suggest that what Jesus actually meant was if one of little faith (faith in the LDS gospel, not in the Gospel of Jesus Christ) will at least trust in “The Church” their faith will grow.

Faith of the mustard seed can be applied to all those that are seeking for truth and bring the Truth of the true Church, His church that he started from tiny beginning of Christianity that grew from just a few disciples teaching his gospel to the entire world!

When Satan attempted to deceive Jesus he failed because Jesus would not be separated from the Father’s guidance, purpose and character. Jesus, couldn’t be fooled into thinking there was anything more worthy of His attention than staying in alignment with the Father. He had a relationship with the Father to the degree that they shared common purpose, will and character. He knew the Father. He knew Truth.

Jesus said, “I am THE TRUTH, the way and the life…” (John 14:6) and “you shall know (be intimate with) THE TRUTH and THE TRUTH shall make you free” (John 8:32).

As a person on Facebook wrote: “What Holland teaches is clear –when confronted with questions, the answer must not conflict with what you once believed to know, and if you are not satisfied with that that answer, keep trying till you do, and keep it on your shelf with all the rest of the ‘unknowns.’ I cannot subscribe to this method of determining truth.”

There are too many unknowns on that shelf for many Mormons these days. The shelf is getting heavy.

General conference talks appear more as pep talk designed to help people feel good and maintain their testimony of the Mormon Church than words from prophets regarding God’s salvation message and truth.

Are Mormons Christians? A Debate in Salt Lake City

Hey all. Just in the last week there has been a debate at the University of Utah in Salt lake City between Martin Tanner, Mormon Apologist and host of the Religion Today Show on KSL Radio in Utah, and Reverend Jason Wallace of Christ Presbyterian Church in Salt Lake City and also host of The Ancient Paths on Utah Tv.

On this video they discuss the issue of whether Mormons are Christians. Things like this happen rarely and it is an excellent opportunity to see the kind of issues raised in these dialogues and can be helpful for our own.

This video was kindly provided by Russ Bales who runs the website Mormon Doctrine.Net, he also has a youtube channel with many other great videos here.

The Audio of this is also just below.

Are Mormons Christians? A Debate between Martin Tanner and Reverend Jason Wallace (left click to listen, right click, save link as to download)