Mormonism Is a Sincerely False Gospel

Dr. Mohler,
Thank you for standing up for the Word of God and for being willing to say what needs to be said with grace.

Dr. Mohler has hit the nail squarely on the head. By specifically addressing the question (Are Mormons Christian?) and avoiding strawmen and other distractions he has shown that the answer is a definitive "no."

Mormons are wonderful people and I pray for God's light to shine on them. -jweaks

Dr. Mohler's clear and resonate voice is in steadfast obedience "to contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints." His "bottom line" rightly focuses the issue upon the salvation of sinners, which is why we must preach The Word with mercy and grace to all, including the adherents of Mormonism.

Mormonism contradicts Christianity in that they have their own bible which is in contradiction to the Holy Bible. I do not consider them Christian in their beliefs.

Dear J. Ricks,

Thank you for you comments. I have a couple of points to make about the content of your message:

1. All authority under heaven and earth was given to Jesus (Matt 28:18). In the beginning of His ministry, Jesus gave this authority to His disciples to perform miracles (Matt 10:1). This authority has now been passed on to all believers (Titus 2:11-15). Also, Jesus told us that "apart from me you can do nothing," and "12I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. 13And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. 14You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it. (John 14)

2. The authority that the Pope claims and one of the authorities that Joseph Smith claims to have restored is the Aaronic priesthood. A couple of points: first, to have the Aaronic priesthood, you had to be a JEW and had to be of the tribe of LEVI. Neither the pope nor Smith qualifies. Second, the Aaronic line of priests were mediators between God and man, offering sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins. When Christ died on the cross, the veil in the temple was rent in two, signifying that for ever more the gulf between God and man had been bridged, by a priest greater than Aaron, a priest after the order of Melchizadek:
"5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, 'Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.' "[a] 8First he said, "Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them" (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, "Here I am, I have come to do your will." He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds."[b] 17Then he adds:
"Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more."[c] 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God, 22let us draw near to God with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled to cleanse us from a guilty conscience and having our bodies washed with pure water. 23Let us hold unswervingly to the hope we profess, for he who promised is faithful. [Hebrews 10]

Now, Jesus is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty, interceding for us and being the mediator between God and man that the priests once did (I Tim 2:5, Heb 8:6, Heb 9:15, Heb 12:24, I John 2:1). We do not need the Aaronic priesthood any longer, and the only man who is worthy to fulfill the office of Melchizadek is Christ Himself. That authority is ours to claim if we trust in Him and come to Him in faith.

3. The Reformation was started because people like Martin Luther were opposed to the practice of selling absolutions, meaning you could (according to the priests and the pope) in effect "buy" yourself a stairway to heaven by giving the church more money. That is when Luther reaffirmed the Gospel message that saving grace is by faith in Christ and nothing else - you could not acquire grace by offerings, sacraments, or praying to saints or Mary. The Reformers most certainly did not "change doctrines to better suit them;" they simply were rejecting the false doctrines that church traditions and papal authority carried the same weight as sacred Scripture.

So I would say in conclusion that, to answer your question in terms of looking at the Holy Scriptures for truth and clarity, neither the Catholics nor the Mormons have "got it right." To my reading of the Bible, both religions are holding on to an office that was abolished nearly 2,000 years ago by Christ's death and resurrection. He did not concern Himself with such things, but said the Law and the Prophets were summed up with "Love the Lord your God with all of your mind, soul, and heart" and Love your neighbor as yourself."

We muddy the waters up so much sometimes when the answers often are so simple. Paul wrote in Romans 10 that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Jesus said in Mark 16 that "whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned." His Great Commission to go into all the world, making disciples and baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, is not just for those with "authority" but is a call for all believers. In Rev 1:6, 5:10, and 20:6, all who have believed in the Lord Jesus are called 'priests', so it is not just a chosen few.

I hope this brings some clarification to the matter.

MR: Thanks to Dr. Mohler for keeping this debate "on topic" and to the
MR: point.

GS: Yes, that is gratifying.

MR: This topic was really about "truth in advertising"

GS: Agreed!

MR: you can't call a soft drink a "Coke" unless it's made by Coca Cola.
MR: You can call it what ever you want to call it, but unless it's made
MR: by Coca Cola, it's not a Coke.

GS: Unfortunately, this is a false analogy. A more correct one is
GS: trying to call another soft drink a "cola" and the makers of other
GS: colas crying foul by defining a cola as only and exactly what their
GS: products are.

Mormons are polytheistic like the Apostle Paul was 1 Cor 8:5 For though there be that are called GODS, whether IN HEAVEN or in earth, (as there be GODS MANY, and LORDS MANY,)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.(emphasis mine)

B: A cola may be defined by its fizziness, and perhaps by more than that,
B: so a non-fizzy cola would be a contradiction in terms.

GS: Ok, let's say that fizziness is one requirement for a drink to be a
GS: cola. I now have a product that meets all the requirements for
GS: being a cola but that one. Would it be deceptive to term my drink
GS: a non-fizzy cola?

Put another way:

Websters Dictionary defines a butterfly thusly:

> any of numerous slender-bodied diurnal lepidopteran insects including
> one superfamily (Papilionoidea) with broad often brightly colored wings
> and usually another superfamily comprising the skippers

If I pull the wings off of a butterfly, would it be wrong to then call
it a wingless butterfly? Clearly from the definition wings are a
requirement of a butterfly. Is wingless butterfly a contradiction in
terms or is "wingless", like all other adjectives, acting as a modifier
to its noun?

I have to reflect on one of your comments GB. I believe that you correctly mentioned that the scripture reference from Titus does not support the priesthood of all believers, but 2 Peter 2:9 does support such a notion. If Martin Luther "dreamed this up"...he did so only insofar as he was basing that dream upon the writings of the Apostle Peter himself.

In 2 Peter, the Apostle is directly addressing the believers (2 Peter 1:1-2) of no particular distinction, so the letter is applicable to all believers.

The same reference to a "priesthood of believers" is in 1 Peter 2:5, as once again this letter is written by the Apostle directly to believers.

you know, as i was reading all of this; i realized that the pharisees and other sects, thought they were historically correct. by new revelations, we now have a new cannon of scriptures( the new testament). i believe christ is living, and i also believe he will continue to reveal things to us, according to our faith (john 14:23),(just as he did so many in the new testament, and joseph smith). i dont see how one can believe in the new testament and not believe the lord can come to man; thomas doubted as well, but that didnt make him right, he learned the hard way. i dont see why orthodoxy has anything to do with mormons being christians. some believe the new testament is adding to, just as you claim about mormons. to me traditional christianity is by revelations! this is the rock on which the gospel is built. this is the way i see it. i believe most catholics, protestants, and mormons are christians. we are of different faiths, but as the scriptures say:" he that is not against us, is on our part "(james 1:5)

Michael: I have to reflect on one of your comments GB. I believe that you correctly mentioned that the scripture reference from Titus does not support the priesthood of all believers, but 2 Peter 2:9 does support such a notion.

GB: 2 Peter 2:9 “The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:”

I looked over this more than once and have concluded that you are referring to 1 Peter 2:9 ”But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light:"

Boy, if that doesn’t describe Mormons I don’t know what does. Perhaps you are unaware that the LDS (Mormon) Church makes the priesthood available to “every faithful, worthy man in the Church”. Still there is nothing there that would reject the concept of a ministerial priesthood. Unless you were desperate to find someway to rationalize your claim of authority when you have none.

Michael: If Martin Luther "dreamed this up"...he did so only insofar as he was basing that dream upon the writings of the Apostle Peter himself.

GB: From wikipedia “The priesthood of all believers is a Christian doctrine based on several passages of the New Testament. It is most stressed in Protestantism and was introduced by Martin Luther to reject any concept of ministerial priesthood, as found in the Orthodox and Catholic traditions.”

So this was a doctrine that was hidden from the Christian world for 1500 years but was suddenly and conveniently “discovered” by an apostate. So without authority to change the organization of the priesthood Martin Luther changed the organization of the priesthood. How very convenient.

Michael: In 2 Peter, the Apostle is directly addressing the believers (2 Peter 1:1-2) of no particular distinction, so the letter is applicable to all believers.

GB: Interesting but this has no relevance to the rejection of a ministerial priesthood.

Michael: The same reference to a "priesthood of believers" is in 1 Peter 2:5, as once again this letter is written by the Apostle directly to believers.

GB: 1 Peter 2:5 “Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ.”

Interesting but this has no relevance to the rejection of a ministerial priesthood.

I think that the book of Psalms mentions the book of Mormon when it talks about not adding to God's word.I recently spent time with a young Mormon missionary at my home and I couldn't help but feel sad for him as I became aware of his lonliness.

I'm sincerely disappointed by Dr. Mohler's critique of Mormonism. While I also disagree with Mormonism on a wide range of topics, after years of association with members of the LDS Church, I know most faithful Mormons sincerely call upon Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior.

Ironically, Dr. Mohler would seem to employ a theological double standard when identifying "true" Christians. For example, I have no doubt Dr. Mohler would criticize Mormonism for relying on extra-biblical works, like the Book of Mormon or the Doctrine and Covenants, as though this fact conclusively proves Mormonism is a "sincerely false Gospel." And yet, in the very next breath Dr. Mohler promotes his own authority based on a rather nebulous, esoteric, and decidedly extra-biblical standard he refers to as "traditional Christian orthodoxy." If Mormons be damned for basing salvation on post-biblical texts like the Book of Mormon, why should Dr. Mohler's version of Christianity get a free pass for basing salvation on post-biblical creeds?

By making this kind of argument, Dr. Mohler creates a false illusion of unity and "orthodoxy" among the various branches of Christianity, even while he equally condemns other Christian groups, as his recent comments on the Roman Catholic Church exemplify.

I grew up in the Christian tradition, but regrettably, Dr. Mohler's view does not resonate with the Christianity of my youth. I was taught to believe that ANYONE who calls upon the Lord will be saved. I'm sincerely confused about the seemingly additional requirements of dogmatic creeds, "traditional orthodoxy," and historic confessions. In fact, the Jesus of my youth was frequently shown smashing rigid orthodoxies in favor of a dynamic spiritual RELATIONSHIP with the divine, as provided by Christ the Risen Lord.

And if that saving relationship is so deeply PERSONAL, as all my pastors led me to believe, how can Dr. Mohler or anyone think to judge which of those professing to know Christ are really saved?

As I mentioned before, I disagree with Mormonism on many points, and maybe even some of the same ones identified by Dr. Mohler. However, I dare not tread upon the sovereign right of Almighty God by deciding in advance, who will enter the Gates of Heaven, and who will not. Even the wisest cannot tell.

If Christians disagree on points of doctrine, let them disagree, but let us not place ourselves in a position to judge whose faith is genuine, and whose faith is a "sincerely false Gospel."

Question, whose view of grace of Jesus Christ is "more" amazing?

Evangelicals generally state that declaring you faith in Jesus Christ will save you. But isn't that a work? In the Evangelical view, less than 1% of the world would be saved, because there have been many generations who have died before the coming of Jesus Christ and have not heard his message and thus are damned to hell. Also, there continues to be billions of souls on this Earth who do not find themselves in the right faith and thus are damned to Hell. So 99% of God's Children are damned to Hell and are not saved? Is that a loving God? Is that a merciful God? That doesn't sound like the Jesus whom Peter spoke of?

Mormons state that Jesus will save ALL. Unlike the Evangelicals his grace is FREE, FREE, FREE, FREE to all who have died. The Mormon view is that Salvation through Jesus Christ 99% of God's children will be saved including those who have perished in the wrong faith.

I know that critics of Mormonism will say that we believe in works for Salvation, but you don't understand our theology. We view that "Rewards" are give to us based on works and faith in Jesus Christ. His mercy helps us to grow.

Again, ask yourself. Whose view of God represents on of total and complete love? Damning nearly 99% of all humanity to Hell? Is that fair is that loving God which the Bible speaks of? So we can say that Mormons believe in a more loving and more Jesus than Evangelicals.

Nowandlater:
The Right Question: Whose understanding of God's Grace is more Biblical?

"Mormons state that Jesus will save ALL. Unlike the Evangelicals his grace is FREE, FREE."

Universial atonement is NOT supported by the Words of Jesus, and I'll take His over Joe Smith.

John 3:16-18 16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever BELIEVES in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever BELIEVES in him is not condemned, but WHOEVERE DOES NOT BELIEVE IS CONDEMNED ALREADY, because he has not BELIEVED in the name of the only Son of God.

And by the way, Thank you for proving my early point on language.

It is! Universal Grace and universal atonement! It is FREE! FREE! You may wrongly believe in a limited Jesus, but I believe in an unlimited loving Jesus! I believe that ALL will confess that Jesus is the Christ and will be saved! Evangelicals do not believe this and it is entirely unBiblical! This is a different Jesus they believe in. A limited and cruel Jesus. We believe in being ransomed universally and yet being rewarded based on our faithfullness in Jesus Christ. Come back when you can show me that your Jesus loves just as much as my Jesus.

--------------
1 Cor. 15: 22
22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Phillips 2:10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Isa. 45: 23.
23 I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.

Rom. 14: 11.
11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall bconfess to God.

Rom. 10: 9
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

"Dr. Mohler's version of Christianity" does not base salvation on post-biblical creeds, but soley upon the Grace of God (Ephesians 2:8-9). Third, "post-biblical creeds" are statements of agreement on doctrinal issues found in Biblical Scripture, not an alleged post-biblical revelation."

Where we may term 'traditional' Christianity as synonymous with salvation, I find this quite telling. The interpretations of the NT by which "traditional" Christian orthodoxy is defined are based on the ecumenical counsels of previous centuries, organized and held by Catholics and Pagans alike. That being said, the inherit definitions tandem with the term "Christianity" bases salvation wholly and completely on post-biblical creeds. There is simply no way to get around it.

Aaron

Mormonism is a complete and total cult. I was married to a Mormon for eight long tortuous years, found the Lord through this horrifying expeience, and I can certify that Mormonism is a cult and it is vicious. God help those who are trapped in this mindless maze of confusion and evil.

Many posters here and in related threads this past month continue to miss the salient point of difference : Jesus The Christ is True God and True Man, perfect God and perfect man, fully God and fully man, The Grand Architect Of The Universe, The Light of The World, the preexisting everlasting eternal creator redeemer and sustainer of the cosmos.

Contrary to popular teachers, the doctrine of The Holy Trinity did not originate with Constantine or even Rome; the earliest disciples of Jesus The Christ discussed the concept in well documented manuscripts.

With the love of The Holy Trinity of the ancient Catholic faith.

http://moelder.freeservers.com/TheHolyTrinityandTheDeityofJesusTheChrist.html

Folks, we are truly just spinning our wheels here. We will never come to an end to this debate, so the best we can do is to share our viewpoints and gently agree to disagree, because there are too many differences between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism to be reconciled. We should be able to do this, however, without attacking one another or name calling. Peter called us to always be ready to give an account for the hope we have, "But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." I Peter 3: 15b-16. We can agree to work together to promote family harmony, battle addictions, promote moral self-control, right-to-life, and other important social issues that confront us. That is the right thing to do.

You know, I hear a lot of people ask questions like, "How do you know your religion is the RIGHT religion, or BEST religion?" I tell them thank you for asking, but you are asking the wrong question. The real question is WHAT IS THE TRUTH? There are no good, better, and best religions, because most religions make claims that contradict other religions, so not all religions can be true. Therefore, there is truth and there is falsehood, and it is up to every individual person to find out which is which.

As for me personally, truth is found in one source and one source only: the Word of God. This includes the written Word ["All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3; "Sanctify them by the truth; your word is truth." - John 17:17; "Jesus answered, "It is written: 'Man does not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.'" - Matt 4:4; "And you also were included in Christ when you heard the WORD OF TRUTH, the gospel of your salvation. Having believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession—to the praise of his glory." - Ephesians 1:13-14], and the living Word of God, Jesus Christ ["Jesus answered, "I am the way and the TRUTH and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." - John 14:6; "I tell you the TRUTH," Jesus answered, "before Abraham was born, I am!" - John 8:58; "For there is ONE God and ONE mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all men—the testimony given in its proper time." - I Tim 2: 5-6; "The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and TRUTH."- John 1:14; "For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ." - John 1:17]. That is the TRUTH as I see it; to believe in Jesus Christ, put my trust in Him, and believe in the One that sent Him.

To answer a previous poster's question on salvation, I do not know where the "less than 1% of humankind will ever be saved" came from. Here is what Paul says about the matter in Romans 3: 21-26:

"Righteousness Through Faith
21But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, 23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement,[a] through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus."

So past saints who did not have the Gospel at the time are still saved by it - because God is merciful and gracious. So when we walk on the streets of gold, Daniel, Abraham, Noah, Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, Isaiah, David, et al will be walking there as well, as will all of the other righteous men and women who lived in ancient times.

In closing, I will say this: Jesus NEVER EVER EVER said that everybody would someday be saved. The passage used in Philippians where "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord" does not mean everyone will be under grace. At the end times, the majesty of Christ will be revealed at His Second Coming to a watching world, and even the vilest evildoers will be forced to confess that Jesus is who He says He is. This will not SAVE them. Remember that passage in James 2:19? "You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder." Remember that little passage in Matt 8: 28-30? 'When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes,[a] two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. "What do you want with us, Son of God?" they shouted. "Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?"'

Do you think that the demons' knowledge that Jesus is the Christ saved them? No. And in His earthly ministry, Jesus spent more time talking about hell and outer darkness than He did about heaven. Why? As a warning that faith is not something to be taken lightly, and that the punishment for disbelief is real and horrible. Would a loving God condemn someone to hell? In a real sense, no, because everyone has a choice to make, to choose either life or death. So by denying that Jesus is the Son of God and our Savior, a person condemns himself. The TRUTH is there, but every person has to choose it for himself/herself.

I think that wraps up what I wanted to say. In the end, I do not believe we should be asking the question "Are Mormons Christians?" Who is and is not a Christian is based on an individual's heart, not a church affiliation, and only God and that person truly know what's in his or her's heart. The question should be, "Are some Mormons Christians?", and I believe that answer is yes. It would be just the same if you asked "Are Baptists Christians?" or "Are Methodists Christians?" It depends entirely on the individual and not on the church itself. I am a member of an independent Christian church, and I know full well that there are a number of people who walk through the doors every Sunday who live like pagans during the week. They do not understand that Worship is not something that you do for just a couple of hours on a Sunday morning, but it is something you are supposed to be doing 24/7/365. David in Psalm 1 calls a righteous man someone who "delights in the Law of the Lord; on His law he meditates day and night." Just walking through the doors of a church or belonging to a particular denomination does not save you; it is what you believe and trust in your heart about who Jesus is and what He has done and is still doing for us that does.

Thanks for taking the time to read this admittedly long-winded post.

Chief1989,

I read your "admittedly long-winded post" and agreed with it, with a little clarification. As I see it, the Bible doesn't have a clear and exacting definition of "salvation". And the usage of the term is inconsistent. This results in confusion and debate about the subject.

Mormons define salvation as being saved from death and hell. Not that the wicked will not spent time in hell, for surely they will. Only that after they have been justly punished they will be released from hell.

You, of course, are free to have a different definition.

Other than that clarification I agree with your post.

Chief: I am curious. If the Bible is not infallible, who gets to correct the errors? That is an extremely dangerous path to go down.

GB: The Bible itself tells us “who gets to correct the errors”.
Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord GOD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
Eph 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Chief: Let me give you an example: the Constitution of the United States. . . . That was never the intent of the Founding Fathers, and you see the slide in the morality of the nation.

GB: The Constitution has within itself the method by which it can be “corrected” or changed. The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution by this method. Other Amendments changing the Constitution were “added” using this method.

Chief: The same goes for the Bible. Paul says all Scripture is God-breathed,

GB: But that doesn’t prevent men from making errors in the transcription and translation of scripture.

Chief: and the Nicean council and councils after them did not alter what the books said. These were godly men doing a task of enormous proportions that has stood the test of time.

GB: There is no way for you to validate those statements.

Chief: God always preserves His Word.

GB: There is no way for you to validate that statement. How do you resolve that statement with the lost books of the Bible? The so-called lost books of the Bible are those documents that are mentioned in the Bible in such a way that it is evident they are considered authentic and valuable, but that are not found in the Bible today. Sometimes called missing scripture, they consist of at least the following: book of the Wars of the Lord (Num. 21: 14); book of Jasher (Josh. 10: 13; 2 Sam. 1: 18); book of the acts of Solomon (1 Kgs. 11: 41); book of Samuel the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Gad the seer (1 Chr. 29: 29); book of Nathan the prophet (1 Chr. 29: 29; 2 Chr. 9: 29); prophecy of Ahijah (2 Chr. 9: 29); visions of Iddo the seer (2 Chr. 9: 29; 2 Chr. 12: 15; 2 Chr. 13: 22); book of Shemaiah (2 Chr. 12: 15); book of Jehu (2 Chr. 20: 34); sayings of the seers (2 Chr. 33: 19); an epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, earlier than our present 1 Corinthians (1 Cor. 5: 9); possibly an earlier epistle to the Ephesians (Eph. 3: 3); an epistle to the Church at Laodicea (Col. 4: 16); and some prophecies of Enoch, known to Jude (Jude 1: 14). To these rather clear references to inspired writings other than our current Bible may be added another list that has allusions to writings that may or may not be contained within our present text, but may perhaps be known by a different title; for example, the book of the covenant (Ex. 24: 7), which may or may not be included in the current book of Exodus; the manner of the kingdom, written by Samuel (1 Sam. 10: 25); the rest of the acts of Uzziah written by Isaiah (2 Chr. 26: 22).
The foregoing items attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all of the word of the Lord that he gave to his people in former times, and remind us that the Bible, in its present form, is rather incomplete.

Chief: Now either the Bible is the inspired Word of God, profitable for teaching, correction, and instruction on how to live a godly life, or it is incomplete or not entirely accurate or incorrectly translated, which then gives men the opportunity to pull out those parts that are "incorrectly translated" and insert whatever they want.

GB: You are presenting a “False Dichotomy”. Your two statements are not mutually exclusive.

Chief: These are the people that Paul warned his readers about, the men who would pervert and subvert the gospel for earthly gains.

GB: Like a paid ministry?

Chief: James gives a very solemn warning to anyone who teaches, saying in James 3:1 "Not many of you should presume to be teachers, my brothers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly." Anyone who teaches unsound or false doctrine will be in danger of hellfire, and the sins of those people led astray will be added to that person. So be very careful about declaring what you purport to be the truth.

GB: Agreed.

Chief: God protects His truth very jealously.

GB: The truth is what it is. It needs no protection because it can’t be changed. So I am finding that statement to be silly.

The question is not "Is Mormonism compatible with traditional Christian orthodoxy?" The question is "Are Mormons Christians?"

Dr. Mohler says (in short): "No, Mormons do not fall in line with the traditional Christain orthodoxy."
Orson Scott Card says (in short): "It's absurd to classify Christians strictly under that term. Clearly we have a different opinion of the definition of Christian. You are being unreasonable in your definition."
Dr. Mohler says (in short): "Nope, there is no question as to whether I'm right. My definition of Christianity is correct. Because in my opinion, you are going to hell."
Orson Scott Card says (in short): "Okay, well in the Pope's opinion, you are going to hell, but he still calls you Christians. Why can't you call us Non-traditional Christians?"
Dr. Mohler says/(or thinks) (in short): "Because although you have good values, I think your beliefs are corrupt and evil to the point of not having a rational discussion as to how Christian you are, because in my opinion I think your beliefs are evil. Therefore I venture not into any discussion of the big picture for fear of defeat. I will comfortably stick to not even considering the definition of Christian outside what I've already defined it as. Therefore I won the discussion from the beginning when I proclaimed my definition."
______________________________________________
Okay, so I don't know for sure, but I'm, betting Dr. Mohler won't like the idea of "non-traditional Christian".

First, let me thank you GB for correcting my reference back to 1 Peter when I stated 2 Peter. I'm still human after all ;-)

[GB wrote earlier in reference to 1 Peter 2:9 and the priesthood of believers]: Still there is nothing there that would reject the concept of a ministerial priesthood.

Actually, Hebrews 8:13 clearly states that the priesthood of Christ creates a new covenant, and makes the first on obsolete (or useless). It goes on to say that what is being made obsolete is not only growing old, but is ready to vanish away (ESV).

To grasp the context of this statement, and understand what is included in this "obsolete covenant", one needs to go back to at least the beginning of Hebrews chapter 7. This new covenant not only dispensed with the Levitical priesthood (and Tithing in my opinion....but that's another topic entirely), but established an eternal priesthood which will never require replacement.

I believe the NT is clear that we (all born-again believers in Christ) are a royal and holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5 & 1 Peter 2:9), that each of us are priests (Rev 1:6), and the Christ himself is our eternal High Priest (Heb 7:24). There is no mention of a "middle ground"-level of priest termed a "ministerial priesthood" that I have found. Only believers at one level of the Kingdom, and Christ as its head.

As such, while there are certainly ministerial functionaries (elders and the like) that are essential to the body, I'm not certain we could (or should) classify these individuals in a unique strata of the Body of Christ.

No one has yet shown me that the Bible, as we have it today, is infallible.

Why is it such a stretch to think God, who talked with His children in antiquity, can and does talk with His children today? Did he not care about the people of the America's BEFORE Europeans brought them the "Bible"?

Come on...I think you so called "orthodox Christians" think way too highly of yourselves. God really is no respector of persons and will reveal Himself to all his children, because He loves them equally, with no exclusionary clause...

rotorhead,

1) Is the Bible infallible - it either is what it says it is, the inspired Word of God, or it is what the world says it is, a bunch of stories and myths dreamed up by men as a way of attaining and keeping whatever power and wealth that they could. Jesus said "you are either for me or against me; there is no middle ground." Similarly, there is no middle ground here. If you believe the Bible is the infallible Word of God, you will do what it says and believe what it says. If you think it is incomplete, incorrectly translated, or corrupted (as both the Mormons and the Muslims believe), then it is totally robbed of it's pwoer and there is room for men to come in and fill in the blanks with their own 'gospel'. You can't say "I follow the Bible, except here where it's wrong, here where it contradicts itself, and here where it's incorrectly translated." If it is not totally, 100% the pure-D truth, then God is a liar and the Bible is good for nothing else than kindling. There is no middle ground. Jesus said of the Bible - sanctify them by your word; your word is truth. Also, whenever Jesus was faced with questions, He normally answered them with OT Scripture.

2) Does God still speak to and through people today. I don't think anyone disagreed with you when you asked if God still speaks to people today. Of course He does. He speaks through visions, dreams, ministers of the Gospel, Sunday school teachers, et al, but most of all through His Spirit. That is undeniable. Where we are getting the waters muddied is are there prophets as of old on the earth today, and were the keys of the kingdom lost and then restored to John Smith. I will not get into a big juxtaposition on the validity of John Smith's work and the veracity of the other Mormon scriptures. If anyone really wants to know if the BoM is truth, or about the Book of Abraham, there is plenty of info available from both Mormon and Christian sources for you to get the evidence, weigh the evidence, and make your own decisions. As for myself, I have studied these books, compared them against Holy Scripture, and found them wanting. That's all I will say about that. The idea that Jesus, knowing that all of His apostles would soon die out, would not leave that authority in the hands of someone else is patently absurd. That would be almost assuring that the church, about which Jesus Himself said "the gates of hell will not overcome it", would die out within 60 years of it's inception. I do not believe that the Lord would leave His holy bride to founder about and not leave it in the hands of faithful servants. Early church history confirms that the church, indeed did go on, grow, and reach out to the lost even in the "dark ages."

As for "God will speak to all of His children", I do not find that Europeans, or Asians, or Eskimos, or South American Indians, or Australians have produced records that Jesus visited them also during the 400 years from Malachi to Matthew. Were they not as worthy as North American Indians to not have a visit, and not have someone over there get some golden tablets and laying on of hands from James, Peter, and John? The Lord Jesus has appeared in history one time, in the land of Palestine, and when He comes again every one will know what is happening and there will be no doubt. "You will see the Son of Man coming in the clouds in power and great glory." That is the SECOND COMING, not the 3rd as it would be if the BoM were true.

As for prophets, we are in the final stages of church history, the fulness of the Gentiles. Those gifts, especially of tongues, prophesying, and healing, have been taken from the earth. Those gifts served to validate the Apostles' message, that they were witnesses to the one and only Christ. Also, with the veil in the temple torn in two, the office of High Priest in the Aaronic line was completed, and that authority was transferred to every believer who worships the Lord in spirit and in truth.

We will of course disagree on those 2 points, and that is fine. As I said, each person must search these things out for himself. I have to go now, so my prayer is that everyone who reads this will earnestly seek His face. As James said, "Draw near to the Lord, and the Lord will draw near to you."

Have a great weekend, and God Bless!

Thank you Dr. Mohler for sticking to the question, and addressing the real issues despite Mr. Card's attempts to confuse the issue at hand by chasing side issues.

As a former mormon who has been saved by the sovereign grace of God, I can attest that what Dr. Mohler states is true: the mormon "gospel" is not Gospel at all, but a false belief that leads not to salvation but destruction. In spite of the efforts of Mr. Card and other mormon apologists to confuse the issues, the differences between Christianity and mormonism could hardly be more stark. We cannot, as Mr. Card craves, refer to mormons as "non-traditional" Christians. We must point out that mormonism deviates from Biblical Christianity at every turn, declare the Gospel of Jesus Christ to them, call on them to repent and let God's will be done.

Chief1989,

You seem an intelligent individual, albeit, blinded by your own religious zeal, something for which I don't blame you personally. There is nothing so unsettling to the unillumined intellect and the sterile soul than to change...indeed, spiritual inertia is and has been the malady of millennia, a disease which feeds upon ignorance and is spread most effectively among the complacent. Those who rejected Jesus as the Christ during his earthly reign, did so while professing a great love for the scriptures and a loyalty to prophets of ages past.

By the way I believe his name was "Joseph Smith" not "John Smith." But I suppose small details like this don't matter to one who believes the transcribers of the Bible to be meticulously infallible.

Perhaps you have forgotten Christian history...let me highlight the situation in which YOU say the Bible came thru unscathed, unchanged and pure as if dictated in our day from God's own lips...

Following the death and resurrection of our Savior Jesus Christ and the death of His apostles, the church floundered under constant assault by the Roman empire. It wasn't until AD 306 when Emperor Constantine I became co-ruler that the seeds of Christendom were laid. He issued the Edict of Milan in 313 to order the government to stop the persecution of Christians, and convoked the First Council of Nicaea in 325 whose Nicene Creed included belief in "one holy catholic and apostolic Church", possibly an interpretation of the Great Commission, see also Constantine I and Christianity. Christianity became the STATE RELIGION of the Empire in 392 when Theodosius I passed legislation prohibiting the practice of pagan religions (anything other than the STATE approved Christianity). The orthodox Church gradually became a defining institution of the Empire. (Are you seeing anything akin to separation of church and state here?).

As the Western Roman Empire disintegrated into smaller feudal kingdoms and principalities, the concept of Christendom became less defined in the West and the Eastern Romans, or Byzantines, came to see their nation as the last bastion of Christendom. The concept continued to have a tenuous existence in the West as the Church attempted to maintain and expand its following there. The vision would eventually take a radical turn with the rise of the Franks, a Germanic tribe that converted to the orthodox Christian faith and entered into communion with Rome. On Christmas day, AD 800, Pope Leo III made the fateful decision to switch his allegiance from the emperors in Constantinople and crowned Charlemagne, then the king of the Franks, as the emperor of what came to be known as the Holy Roman Empire. This empire created a competing definition of Christendom in contrast to the Byzantine Empire. The question of what constituted true Christendom would occupy political and religious leaders for centuries.

After the collapse of Charlemagne's empire, the Holy Roman Empire became a collection of states loosely connected to the Holy See of Rome. Tensions between the Popes and secular rulers ran high, as the pontiffs attempted to exert control over their temporal counterparts and vice versa. The idea of Christendom in the West was already greatly discredited by the time of the Renaissance Popes because of the moral laxity of the pontiffs and their willingness to seek and rely on temporal power as secular rulers did.

In the East Christendom, by contrast, became increasingly well defined as Byzantine Empire over centuries gradually lost territory to Muslim invaders causing Christianity to become ever more important to Byzantine identity. Although even after the East-West Schism which divided the Church there had always been some vague notion of a universal Christendom that included the East and the West, this unity was finally destroyed by the Fourth Crusade in which Western Christian mercenaries conquered the Byzantine capital and set the Empire on a path to annihilation. Byzantine Christians would never again feel unity with their Western counterparts.

So...a few questions:

Who(m) might I ask was the keeper and protector of the Bible during this period when the world was propelled into the "dark ages" (it wasn't called "dark" because of all the heavenly manifestations taking place)? The State? You can always trust the government.

When it was punishable by death to possess any form of holy writ, how did the Bible manage to slip thru unscathed? Surely it is not too much to suppose that those who have the blood of Saints on their hands might find it within their conscience to tamper with what the Apostles had written.

When and how did the Reformers (Protestants) get a hold of this inerrant doctrine of scripture and further how did they VERIFY that it was in fact the very "Original" word of God as given directly to the prophets of Millennia past?

GB,

I'm afraid you don't know what "priesthood of the believer" means. So let me tell you, it means that every believer has access to God through the Blood of Jesus Christ, without having to go through an earthly priest. We no longer have to have someone to speak to God on our behalf we can go straight to the source.
If you don't believe in the priesthood of the believer how do you have confident access to God?

Paul: I'm afraid you don't know what "priesthood of the believer" means.

GB: That is most likely true. After all it is a false doctrine dreamed up by Martin Luther to rationalize his claim of authority when he had none, and he based it on scripture that he had to wrest quite badly.

Paul: So let me tell you, it means that every believer has access to God through the Blood of Jesus Christ, without having to go through an earthly priest.

GB: And I disagree. Every person has access to the “Blood of Jesus Christ” by obedience to the laws and ordinances of His Gospel. You know; Faith, Repentance, Baptism (by immersion for the remission of sin) and the Gift of the Holy Ghost (by the laying on of hands), by those who are in authority (have been called and ordained to the priesthood) to administer those ordinances.

Paul: We no longer have to have someone to speak to God on our behalf we can go straight to the source.

GB: That technically isn’t true. Jesus Christ is the Mediator between God, the Eternal Father and mankind. If you want Him to speak positively about you, I suggest that you obey all of His commandments and follow His Gospel.

Paul: If you don't believe in the priesthood of the believer how do you have confident access to God?

GB: I have received those saving ordinances that I mentioned from authorized men. And I work daily to be obedient to all of His commandments and I repent as quickly as I can when I fall short.

BTW

Rotorhead,
Thanks for your support.

To Clare and Mrs Owens, (et al)

Both of your rantings that "Mormonism is a cult" and that "Mormans are not Christian" have become boring, dull and way over used...

You need to READ the blog if you are going to post to it and at least pretend you have an intellect. Your laziness is blocking any opportunities for you to learn something. But, you are both classic examples of the spiritual inertia of millennia past...a disease which feeds upon ones own ignorance and is spread most effectively among the complacent. I apologize for being so blunt, but you are exactly like those who rejected Jesus as the Christ during his earthly reign, while at the same time professing a great love for the scriptures and a loyalty to prophets of ages past.

Time to awake from your spiritual slumber, stretch your minds a little and and write something new and worth reading...and please, at least learn how to spell Mormons correctly!!

GB,
This is why I believe in the priesthood of the believer.

But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who has called you out of darkness into his marvelous light; for you once were not a people, but now you are the people of God; you had not received mercy, but now you have received mercy. 1 Peter 2:9-10

Verse 9 "But you are... a royal priesthood" The point here is first that you have immediate access to God—you don't need another human priest as a mediator. God himself provided the one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ. You have direct access to God, through God. And, second, you have an exalted, active role in God's presence. You are not chosen just to fritter away your time doing nothing. You are called now to minister in the presence of God. All your life is priestly service. You are never out of God's presence. You are never in a neutral zone. You are always in the court of the temple. And your life is either a spiritual service of worship (Romans 12:1–2), or it is out of character.

This is going to be quite long so bear with me,
Concerning priesthood,
Let's ask what relevance this has for us. Who are the priests today? Or are there any? The New Testament never uses the term priest to describe a pastor or elder in the church. There is no official priesthood in the New Testament church. The reason for this is very clear: Jesus Christ himself has become a permanent priest for us and the Old Testament priesthood is now obsolete. Hebrews 7:23–25,

"The priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office; but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues for ever. Consequently he is able for all time to save those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them".

Christ is now the one and only priest between us and God. The reason for this is that his sacrifice was final and his life is indestructible (7:16).

"When Christ appeared as a high priest . . . he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking not the blood of goats and calves but his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption". (Hebrews 9:11–12)

So the Old Testament priesthood is replaced once and for all by the priestly ministry of Jesus—the offering of himself as the final sacrifice for sin, and the interceding for us today in heaven. There is no official priesthood in the New Testament church.

Minimizing the Once-for-All Sacrifice of Christ

Therefore wherever you find today an emphasis on the priesthood of the clergy, there you also find minimizing of the once-for-allness of the sacrifice of Christ. For example, in the Roman Catholic Church the official priesthood is extremely important because the mass is a real sacrifice. The bread and cup are really transubstantiated into the body and blood of Christ and are offered up to God for the forgiveness of sins. This repeated sacrifice in the church necessitated an official priesthood to administer the sacrifices just like the Old Testament had an official priesthood to offer the animal sacrifices.

But both the mass and the clerical priesthood minimize and distort the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ on Calvary. The truth is lost or minimized that there are no more sacrifices for sin; the death of Christ once for all is sufficient to forgive all who believe; and that's why there is no more official priesthood in the New Testament; the priestly offering of sacrifices is done. Christ ended it.

The Whole Church as a Holy Priesthood

Instead, Peter calls the whole church a "holy priesthood" (1 Peter 2:5) and a "royal priesthood" (1 Peter 2:9); and John says that Christ made the whole church a kingdom, priests to his God and Father (Revelation 1:6). This means that Christ has opened the way for all of us to come directly to God through him. We do not need any human mediator. We can walk with Christ—our high priest—right into the Holiest Place where God dwells and find grace to help in time of need (Hebrews 4:16).

So there is no official priesthood in the New Testament church. No church leaders are called priests because of their office in the church. But this raises the question: Were there other duties that priests had in the Old Testament besides offering sacrifices for the sake of the people—duties that may indeed be continued in the New Testament?

The Priestly Duty of Teaching and Guiding

The answer is a clear yes. Notice Malachi 2:7, "For the lips of a priest should guard knowledge, and men should seek instruction from his mouth, for he is the messenger of the LORD of hosts."

In other words the priests were teachers. This part of their ministry is continued in the church of the New Testament. Ephesians 4:11 says that Christ gave to the church some pastors and teachers to equip the saints for the work of the ministry. First Timothy says that there are to be overseers who are able in teaching (3:2), and that some elders in the church are to labor in preaching and teaching (5:17; cf. Titus 1:9).

So this part of the priests' duties in Israel is continued in the elders of the New Testament church—they are responsible to teach and guide the church. But they are never called "priests," because that would imply too much likeness to the Old Testament office. Pastors do not offer sacrifices for the forgiveness of sins—not in the mass or any other way. We do not offer people Jesus Christ in the mass, we point people to the finished, all-sufficient work of the cross and directly to the living, interceding Jesus Christ, by the Word of God. We are teachers and preachers above all else.

Paul,

You confuse offices (differing functions) within the Priesthood as being the same as Priesthood.

I don't like to "Bible bash" because I know for every scripture to support my position there is one to counter it (supporting my position that the Bible is fallible, incomplete and today being subject to "private interpretation"). You say in so many words there is no need of "Priests", and that the Old Testament is no longer valid. If so, then why did Jesus Christ quote from it so much? Or maybe you meant just some of the Old Testament is obsolete...?

Ephesians 4: 11-12 "And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ; till we ALL come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man..." Has that happened? If so, then we have no need of a church, teachers, pastors, prophets or even scriptures since we've "Arrived".

I say you are honestly wrong, misguided and using a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning.

Paul,

I suppose your statement that "the Old Testament priesthood is obsolete" is as biblical as "the rapture"; both convenient phrases unique to modern day Christiandom with no foundation, even in your infallible bible.

So I guess it's ok to make things up so long as you are in the mainstream of so called "accepted" Christianity?

For some odd reason, I thought God was the same Yesterday, Today, and Forever...I guess yesterday meant only as far back as New Testament times.

Come on, Why would God talk through Prophets in the Old Testament and then all of a sudden STOP? Did Jesus' coming to earth negate the need for further communication with God because someone wrote every truth God wanted us to know down? Do you believe that the "common" folks prior to Christ could never receive answers to prayers, but instead had to seek out a prophet? Help me understand this illogical reasoning. Either the Bible is infallible or it isn't. And if it isn't, doesn't mean it's not valuable, truthful and inspiring...just incomplete.

GB,

I believe in as Luther would say SOLA Scriptura, Scripture alone, which is not meant to say that there is no other religious authority, but that there is no higher religious authority

I also believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture or complete inerrancy of the Bible: As Luther said "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites".

What do you believe about the Bible?

Paul,

Thanks for the question.

I think you like so many have drifted away from worshiping the One and only True God to worshiping the Bible!

Yes, I believe the Bible is fallible...it makes no claim to infallibility, or to having been supernaturally dictated letter by letter, or to everything in it being of equal worth, or to the infallibility of its prophets, or to having all necessary answers, or to its being the composite of ALL revelation. The Bible makes no announcement as to what books were to be contained within it, nor does it contain a definition of what scripture is or give any suggested safeguards or warnings to protect us against grievous mistranslations.

Today, we have almost numberless variations of Bible texts, the current New Testament alone being a reconstruction of over five thousand separate texts, no two of which are exactly the same. The spirit of revelation, NOT the Bible, was the constitution of the church Christ organized. The life-giving force of that church was the Holy Ghost, not twenty-seven books known to us as the New Testament that were not even agreed upon until the end of the fourth century, nor translated into English until 1535, out of "Douche" (i.e. German) and Latin.

Here is just one example of an obvious mistranslation:
Genesis 6:6 KJV "And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart." Tell me how an all knowing, sinless God would ever need to repent?

Does this mean it is all false? Of course not! But to claim for the Bible what it does not claim for itself is to misuse the Bible. The purpose and spirit of the Bible is to OPEN the heavens, not seal them.

rotorhead,

If you look up the word "repent" in Webster's, the second definition means to 2A to feel regret or contrition, 2B to change one's mind.

Therefore, the word 'repented' as used in Gen 6:6 in the KJV does not mean that God had to turn from His sin, but that he felt regret at having made man because of all of the wickedness going on. So there is no contradiction or mistake there.

And yes, the life-giving force for the early church, and for the church now, continues to be the Spirit. But what was the church doing? Devoting themselves to the Apostle's teaching, breaking bread together, and praying. What were the Apostle's teaching them? Acts 8: 26-35 gives us the answer:

26Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road—the desert road—that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian[a]eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it."
30Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked.
31"How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him.
32The eunuch was reading this passage of Scripture:
"He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before the shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
33In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth."[b]
34The eunuch asked Philip, "Tell me, please, who is the prophet talking about, himself or someone else?" 35Then Philip began with that very passage of Scripture and told him the good news about Jesus.

THEN PHILIP BEGAN WITH THAT VERY PASSAGE OF SCRIPTURE AND TOLD HIM THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT JESUS.

I hope that clears it up for you.

Dear Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr.
My name is Bob Turlington. I read your info on the Mormons(LDS). I believe they are a false group too. Being an born-again evangelist I deal with such groups all the time. I hear the same thing all the time, the Bible is corrupt and now we have the truth. The BOM is a joke. First I ask Mormons which version do they have? the Re-organised Church has the 1830 version. the Mormons on bikes have the much over-hauled one. Secondly, which Mormon church? There is over 200 types in the USA hiding practicing polyogamy.
The next big issue and this is the key is who is Jesus? Every group outside of Christianity does not believe he is God in the flesh. Even the SDAs they believe he is Michael the Archangel like JWs.
In short, the LDS have no ground to stand on. They are not Christian they are really New Age and I think Paul said it right in Gal 1:8.

Bob Turlington

ps I believe the Bible is infallible in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGES. All today's translations are what they are translations. That is why we study the Greek and Hebrew.

To Bob Turlington (self-proclaimed harbinger of all truth),

You say "the BOM, (and I assume you mean Book of Mormon) is a joke."

By "Joke" did you mean, wisecrack, gag, jape, prank, quip, quirk, sally, raillery, or jest as something said or done to provoke laughter or cause amusement, as a witticism, a short and amusing anecdote, or a prankish act? Or did I mis-translate your meaning?

I want to be clear here and talk in the ORIGINAL LANGUAGE so there is no misunderstanding of your intent to ridicule, mock, twit, deride, or make fun of in any unkind, jeering way another persons faith or belief system.

Oh by the way, is it biblical (orthodox Christian) to "Joke" another's religious beliefs...? Maybe you better review what "born-again" means 'cause that's NOT how the Jesus Christ I worship acts.

Chief1989,

I appreciate your last introductory comments, and feel I may have been quick to judge your overarching intent, however, I do think it's telling when so many who profess allegiance to Jesus Christ can not agree on His and that of His Apostle's simple teachings as outlined in the Bible. If the Spirit speaks to all sincere seekers of truth, and I believe it does, then why so many diverse Christian religions? This is important to me. My faith rises or falls on the concept of a "living, caring, involved, God who "IS," NOT "Who was"!

No doubt the Bible has lead countless numbers to the ONE and only true God (yes a Mormon said that). But to believe that God with His infinite knowledge has given us ALL there is to give is ludicrous and plays into the hands of secular progressives who think all Christians are loons.

We have a lot more in common than you and many like you are willing to accept or admit. "Be not Afraid, only believe." (Mark 5:35-36)

I Believe in God our Eternal Father, He who is greatest of all, who stands ever ready to help us and who has the power to do so. I believe in Jesus Christ, the Savior and the Redeemer of mankind, the worker of miracles, the greatest who ever walked the earth, the intercessor with our Father. I believe in the power of the Holy Ghost to lead, to inspire, to comfort, to protect. I believe in the sacred word of God, the Holy Bible, with its treasury of inspirations and sacred truth; and I also believe in continuing revelation, the Book of Mormon and other recorded utterances of Deity as being sacred, and inspired of God for the benefit of mankind. I challenge anyone to find a contradictory teaching of Jesus Christ in the Book of Mormon! And emphatically claim that if the Book of Mormon is true scripture, and I know it is, then Joseph Smith is a prophet of God. His complete and living church has been established to prepare for the King of King's return and subsequent millennial reign...

And so, here we must agreeably disagree and pray for one another and for all honest seekers of truth and for a very troubled world vexed by contention and evil. My hope is that despite our differences, that are sometimes fun to debate, that they may NOT keep us from uniting as Christians, fellow saints with God, and allow us to publish peace, freedom and love in whatever circle of influence we might find ourselves.

Shalom

I looked back in the thread and found that Paul and addressed this to me. So I will respond.

Paul: I believe in as Luther would say SOLA Scriptura, Scripture alone, which is not meant to say that there is no other religious authority, but that there is no higher religious authority.

GB: You of course can believe what ever you want. As I understand it Sola scriptura "by scripture alone" is the ASSERTION that the Bible as God's written word is self-authenticating, clear to the rational reader, its own interpreter ("Scripture interprets Scripture"), and sufficient of itself to be the final authority of Christian doctrine.

It is also internally inconsistent. This doctrine is not found in the Bible so to get this doctrine one must go outside the Bible. If one has to go outside the Bible to get the doctrine of sola scriptura, it violates its own rule. Also if it were true there would be no disagreement in the Christian world.

Paul: I also believe in the Inerrancy of Scripture or complete inerrancy of the Bible: As Luther said "It is impossible that Scripture should contradict itself; it only appears so to senseless and obstinate hypocrites".

GB: Is the New World Translation of the Bible inerrant? Are all translations inerrant? Is it possible for a translator to purposely change the meaning of you inerrant Bible? And yet the Bible never makes such a claim for itself. And how could it, when it was assembled more than 200 years after the disappearance of the last Apostle. Also, Luther’s doctrine of sola scriptura does contradict itself. I do agree that if someone has the correct understanding and interpretation of the scriptures there will be no contradictions.

Paul: What do you believe about the Bible?

GB: I believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly.

ANOTHER GOSPEL?

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
As members of that church we are often taken to task by the ministers and members of other churches who are critical of that claim. They say that we worship a "different Jesus" than they worship. They say that our doctrine is not "Biblical Christianity". They often quote the following Bible passage as support:

Galatians 1:6-8 NIV 6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

Now when this scripture is quoted, the critics of the LDS church, use it to maintain that Mormons are accursed, and are "going to hell". (As Dr. Mohler maintains in this article)

This blog article is written to examine the "gospel" preached by Jesus, his Apostles, and other Prophets in the Bible to determine what doctrines were originally taught that may be missing today. As we do this it should become clear what the gospel contains and what is missing from the doctrines of Creedal or traditional Orthodoxy.

1. GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, MALE AND FEMALE
Genesis 1:26-27 NIV 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, [b] and over all the creatures that move along the ground." 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.

2. GOD HAS A BODY
Genesis 32:30 NIV 30 So Jacob called the place Peniel, [f] saying, "It is because I saw God face to face, and yet my life was spared."

Exodus 24:9-11 NIV 9 Moses and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and the seventy elders of Israel went up 10 and saw the God of Israel. Under his feet was something like a pavement made of sapphire, [b] clear as the sky itself. 11 But God did not raise his hand against these leaders of the Israelites; they saw God, and they ate and drank.

Luke 24:36-42 NIV 36While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, "Peace be with you."
37They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38He said to them, "Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have."
40When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, "Do you have anything here to eat?" 42They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43and he took it and ate it in their presence.

3. MEN CAN BECOME LIKE JESUS AND BE ONE WITH HIM AND THE FATHER

Jesus Prays for All Believers
John 17:20-24 NIV 20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24"Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world.

Philippians 3:20-21 NIV 20But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21who, by the power that enables him to bring everything under his control, will transform our lowly bodies so that they will be like his glorious body.

1st John 3:1-2 NIV 1How great is the love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are! The reason the world does not know us is that it did not know him. 2Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears,[a]we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

Romans 8:16-17 NIV 16The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God's children. 17Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

Revelation 3:20-22 NIV 20Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. 21To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne. 22He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches."

LET US SUMMARIZE POINTS 1,2 & 3: A BIBLE CHURCH WILL TEACH THAT GOD HAS A BODY, THAT MAN AND WOMAN ARE CREATED IN THE IMAGE OF THAT BODY AND THAT THOSE WHO OVERCOME WILL BE LIKE GOD, WILL BE ONE WITH GOD, WILL BE HEIRS OF GOD, WILL SIT WITH HIM ON HIS THRONE.

What else does the Bible teach?

4. FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST MANIFESTED BY KEEPING HIS COMMANDMENTS
John 14:15 NIV "If you love me, you will obey what I command.

John14:21 NIV Whoever has my commands and obeys them, he is the one who loves me. He who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love him and show myself to him."

John 15:14 NIV You are my friends if you do what I command.

Hebres 11:4-40 NIV 4 BY FAITH ABEL OFFERED GOD A BETTER SACRIFICE than Cain did. By faith he was commended as a righteous man, when God spoke well of his offerings. And by faith he still speaks, even though he is dead.
5 BY FAITH ENOCH was taken from this life, so that he did not experience death; he could not be found, because God had taken him away. For before he was taken, he was commended as one who pleased God. 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
7 BY FAITH NOAH, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear BUILT AN ARK to save his family. By his faith he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness that comes by faith.

8 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, when called to go to a place he would later receive as his inheritance, OBEYED AND WENT, even though he did not know where he was going. 9 By faith he made his home in the promised land like a stranger in a foreign country; he lived in tents, as did Isaac and Jacob, who were heirs with him of the same promise. 10 For he was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God.

11 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, even though he was past age—and Sarah herself was barren—was enabled to BECOME A FATHER because he[a]considered him faithful who had made the promise. 12And so from this one man, and he as good as dead, came descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as countless as the sand on the seashore.

13All these people were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance. And they admitted that they were aliens and strangers on earth. 14People who say such things show that they are looking for a country of their own. 15If they had been thinking of the country they had left, they would have had opportunity to return. 16Instead, they were longing for a better country—a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them.

17 BY FAITH ABRAHAM, when God tested him, OFFERED ISAAC as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18even though God had said to him, "It is through Isaac that your offspring[b] will be reckoned."[c] 19Abraham reasoned that God could raise the dead, and figuratively speaking, he did receive Isaac back from death.

20 BY FAITH JACOB BLESSED ISAAC AND ESAU in regard to their future.

21 BY FAITH JACOB, when he was dying, BLESSED EACH OF JOSEPH'S SONS, and worshiped as he leaned on the top of his staff.

22 BY FAITH JOSEPH, when his end was near, SPOKE ABOUT THE EXODUS of the Israelites from Egypt and gave instructions about his bones.

23 BY FAITH MOSES' PARENTS HID HIM for three months after he was born, because they saw he was no ordinary child, and they were not afraid of the king's edict.

24 BY FAITH MOSES, when he had grown up, REFUSED to be known as the son of Pharaoh's daughter. 25 HE CHOSE TO BE MISTREATED along with the people of God rather than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a short time. 26 He regarded disgrace for the sake of Christ as of greater value than the treasures of Egypt, because he was looking ahead to his reward. 27 BY FAITH HE LEFT EGYPT, not fearing the king's anger; he persevered because he saw him who is invisible. 28 BY FAITH HE KEPT THE PASSOVER and the sprinkling of blood, so that the destroyer of the firstborn would not touch the firstborn of Israel.

29 BY FAITH THE PEOPLE PASSED THROUGH THE RED SEA[d] as on dry land; but when the Egyptians tried to do so, they were drowned.

30 BY FAITH the walls of Jericho fell, after the PEOPLE HAD MARCHED around them for seven days.

31 BY FAITH THE PROSTITUTE RAHAB, because she WELCOMED THE SPIES, was not killed with those who were disobedient.[e]

32 AND WHAT MORE SHALL I SAY I do not have time to tell about Gideon, Barak, Samson, Jephthah, David, Samuel and the prophets, 33 who THROUGH FAITH CONQUERED KINGDOMS, administered justice, and gained what was promised; who shut the mouths of lions, 34quenched the fury of the flames, and escaped the edge of the sword; whose weakness was turned to strength; and who became powerful in battle and routed foreign armies. 35Women received back their dead, raised to life again. Others were tortured and refused to be released, so that they might gain a better resurrection. 36Some faced jeers and flogging, while still others were chained and put in prison. 37They were stoned[f]; they were sawed in two; they were put to death by the sword. They went about in sheepskins and goatskins, destitute, persecuted and mistreated— 38the world was not worthy of them. They wandered in deserts and mountains, and in caves and holes in the ground.

39 THESE WERE ALL COMMENDED FOR THEIR FAITH, yet none of them received what had been promised. 40God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect.

James2:14-19 NIV 14 WHAT GOOD IS IT, my brothers, IF A MAN CLAIMS TO HAVE FAITH BUT HAS NO DEEDS? Can such faith save him? 15 Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds."
Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do.

19You believe that there is one God. Good! EVEN THE DEMONS BELIEVE that—and shudder.

5. REPENTENCE BY THOSE WHO HAVE FAITH
Matt 3:8 NIV Produce fruit in keeping with repentance.

Mark 1:4 NIV And so John came, baptizing in the desert region and preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins.

Luke 13:2-3 NIV 2Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way? 3I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.

Acts 17:30 NIV In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent.

Acts 26:20 NIV First to those in Damascus, then to those in Jerusalem and in all Judea, and to the Gentiles also, I preached that they should repent and turn to God and prove their REPENTENCE BY THEIR DEEDS.

6. BAPTISM NECESSARY FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS BY THOSE WHO BELIEVE TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Matt 3:13-15 NIV 13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. 14 But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" 15 Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented.

Matt 28:19-20 NIV 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in[a] the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. . .

Mark 16:16 NIV Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Luke 7:30 NIV But the Pharisees and experts in the law rejected God's purpose for themselves, because they had not been baptized by John)

John 3:5 NIV Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.

Acts 2:37-38 NIV 37 When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"
38 Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:48 NIV 48 So he (Peter) ordered that they be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 22:13-15 NIV 13 He (Ananias) stood beside me and said, 'Brother Saul, (Paul) receive your sight!' And at that very moment I was able to see him.
14"Then he said: 'The God of our fathers has chosen you to know his will and to see the Righteous One and to hear words from his mouth. 15You will be his witness to all men of what you have seen and heard. 16And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.'

1st Peter 3:21 NIV and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge[e] of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

7. GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST BY THE LAYING ON OF HANDS BY THOSE WITH AUTHORITY
Acts 8:17-17 NIV 14When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them. 15When they arrived, they prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 16because the Holy Spirit had not yet come upon any of them; they had simply been baptized into[c] the name of the Lord Jesus. 17Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.

LET US SUMMARIZE POINTS 4-7. A BIBLE CHURCH WILL TEACH FAITH IN JESUS CHRIST MANIFESTED BY WORKS OF REPENTENCE, BAPTISM AS A NECESSARY ORDINANCE TO ENTER THE KINGDOM OF GOD, AND LAYING ON OF HANDS BY THOSE IN AUTHORITY FOR THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.

DOES YOUR CHURCH TEACH THESE DOCTRINES AS PLAINLY EXPRESSED IN THE BIBLE? IF NOT, DOES THE CONDEMNATION EXPRESSED BY THE BIBLE IN GALATIANS APPLY TO THOSE WHO TEACH IN THAT CHURCH?

Mike,

I agree with everything you stated, but wow, way too long for a blog posting if you want anyone non-LDS to read it; milk before meat brother...

A second thing to note:

Critics of the Church like to make long strings of unsubstantiated assertions. An example of this is Chief's post of July 27 1:11 P.M.
at the fllowing link

http://blog.beliefnet.com/blogalogue/2007/07/the-church-of-the-devil.html.comments.html

Chief made 10 unsupported assertions in three or four paragraphs.
By shotgunning us like this they assume that we won't have the energy or will to answer. That's why I took the time to answer all 10 at length.

I also use fairlds.org and Maxwell istitute links, but I quote them because Critics of the Churchtry to "poison the well" by saying that such LDS websites are: 1. Simplistic 2. Untrue 3. Poorly researched. Quoting some of the articles at length gives the lie to this tactic.

Mike,

Good points. When I was in "public affairs" training my instructor once said, and this was in regard to the slanderous press corps, that:

"Never wrestle with a pig; you only get dirty, and he has all the fun."

These "sincere" orthodox Christians are not interested in truth, only in promulgating their warped and desiccated version of it. I can't get one to read the Book of Mormon, they are so blinded by their own self-righteous crusade to save the Mormons...

But, I can't blame them ALL...some are "sincerely"...wrong.

Georgia,
That is so good you should repost it on the latest thread.

Mike, you said

"If there are those who are reading now. The best text there is to understand Mormonism is the Book of Mormon."

How is this the best text to understand Mormonism. I would contend that the best text with the broadest information to understand Mormonism would be the doctrine and covenants. The only things that came from the BoM is a bunch of stories.

Mormonism is a religious faith founded upon specific doctrines... Read the following carefully -

Does the Book of Mormon teach the doctrines of Mormonism?

No. Many people assume that if they read the Book of Mormon they will get a good idea of LDS beliefs. However, the Book of Mormon teaches one God, not plural gods as in Mormonism. It mentions heaven and hell, not three degrees of glory, no temple marriage or secret temple ceremonies. It does not teach baptism for the dead, pre-existence of man, eternal progression or polygamy (see comparison chart). One of the most objectionable doctrines in the Book of Mormon is its view of skin color. White skin is seen as desirable, dark skin is seen as a mark of God's displeasure (see chart on racial statements). Smith wrote the Book of Mormon in the late 1820's. Over the next fifteen years his doctrines underwent radical changes which are seen in his revelations in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.

It's very sad that the LDS missionary's tell people to read the Book of Mormon, and then pray about it to receive confirmation of its truth by the power of the Holy Ghost. Why is that sad? Because your not even praying about the central core doctrine that IS the LDS church. Thats what the LDS church has done over the past century and a half, is try and make itself look like a more and more Christian like organization, giving just a little information (a book full of stories about indians), and holding back from plain view the real doctrinal beliefs of Mormonism, because that would be harder for someone to accept. What investigators should do is look at the REAL history of Joseph Smith, of plural (and a couple times underage *Helen Mar Kimball) marriage, racism, folk-magic (glass looking, treasure-seeking), made up scripture (book of abraham), occultic rituals (Free-mason originated endowment ceremonies)...

But nooooo, lets not be upfront with the History of the LDS church, or else it might look kind of dirty to the investigators.

I don't expect you to change your beliefs off of the stuff I just wrote, but I pray that you would at least do your due diligence on investigating. I'm not asking you to listen to made up stuff from people who don't know any better, but just look at the history of your church.

One thing I suggest you check out is go to www.goodnewsforlds.org and watch the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith clips... You may view it as anti-mormon but its all stuff that has extensive evidence to back it up, its not made up.

Excellent post, Jeff!

That is the problem with Mormonism; all of the missionaries carried copies of the Book of Mormon, but none wanted to talk about doctrines central to Mormon beliefs not contained in the BoM. I tried this twice, and the answer was "that stuff comes later. Right now, can I read to you out of the book of Mormon?" When I talk about my faith to others, I first start out with my personal testimony and then talk about the central tenets of my faith, all based solely on Scripture. There is nothing to hide and nothing to be evasive or deceptive about.

No Mormon on this thread has ever tried to address the fact of why different canons of Mormon scripture contradict one another. Why many Biblical doctrines espoused in the BoM have been changed in the other scriptures to mean something totally un-Christian. Thus, Mike Bennion is totally wrong when he says that the best text to understand Mormonism is the book of Mormon. You have to read Doctrines and Covenants and the Journal of Discourses to get a feel for real Mormon doctrine.

God bless...

Chief: No Mormon on this thread has ever tried to address the fact of why different canons of Mormon scripture contradict one another.

GB: Another bald assertion. Why don't you provide one of these so-called contradictions for discussion. It is impossible "to address" something that hasn't been presented.

Chief,

To answer your question.

Read the Book of Mormon cover to cover (without commentary from your favorite anti-mormon source), then apply the challenge in Moroni chapter 10 (all of it, especially the "sincere heart, with real intent" part). IF you will do this THEN you will know.

If you really are sincere then you will do it.

Paul: Contradiction #1

GB: Yet neither one of your quotes are from any LDS canon.

You guys keep quoting from the Journal of discourses which is not LDS canon. The official LDS church position on the Journal of discourses is "The Journal of discourses is not an official publication of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. It is a compilation of sermons and other materials from the early years of the Church, which were transcribed and then published. It includes practical advice as well as doctrinal discussion, some of which is speculative in nature and some of which is only of historical interest."

Doctrines of Salvation by Joseph Fielding Smith is not published by the Church either.

Chief,

Line upon line, precept upon precept, milk before meat.

I am not sure why you are even asking the question, since you are unwilling to read any of the LDS canon(other than the Bible of course).

GB,

I think you may have finally hit upon something here!

Perhaps Chief and others have never had the Holy Ghost witness TRUTH to them before and therefore they "can't" distinguish between God speaking to the heart and Ding Dong's speaking to the gut!

I am beginning to understand now the cause of the rift between orthodox Christians and the Restored message of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.

Personal revelation is so foreign a concept to them that the idea of reading the Book of Mormon and praying for a spiritual witness is way outside their own reality...kind of like most of the Jews in Christ's day who were unable to think outside of their infallible "dead prophets" paradigm...

Well folks, time to call it a night.

GB, I think you misunderstood me. I have felt the palpable prescence of the Holy Spirit many times, guiding me, giving me understanding to what I've read, prompting me to pray for someone in the middle of the night. So that is not an issue. However, if you read the Scriptures you cited above more closely, Jesus always said that the Spirit would testify about Himself. He never asks the Spirit to testify about Joseph Smith. The truth is found no where else but in the person of Jesus, and Jesus has been FULLY and COMPLETELY revealed to us in Scripture. I, speaking for myself, need no other testament to the fact the Jesus is the Messiah promised to the world in the OT and delivered to the world in the NT. So no, I don't fear any encounter with the Holy Spirit, not at all.

rotorhead, in response to your question of 'why do born-again Christians always feel like it is their duty to convince Mormons of the error of their ways?'. I am sorry that it feels like that way for you. Maybe even I have come off as sounding like that. I apologize if that is the case. I heard it put this way once; "Too many Christians are soft-headed and hard-hearted, soft-headed in the fact that they can't defend their faith logically, but hard-hearted in the fact that they view all non-believers as heathens or pagans, and feel compelled to deliver the bad news that they are going to hell with glee. Rather, we should be hard-headed and soft-hearted; hard-headed in that we know why we believe what we believe, but soft-hearted in realizing that we are talking to other people also created in God's image that He loves just as much as He does us, and He wants nothing more than to prepare a place for them in His heavenly mansion as well." Too often compassion and mercy get left at the door, and we need to learn how to speak to each other in the love of Christ rather than trying to prove how much we know. We do have some common ground together, so we should build on that. I will never agree doctrinally with the other Mormon scriptures, and you will probably always hold to them, so I see no point in trying to bicker about that. We should pray God's blessing and wisdom over the whole affair, and let Him guide us onward on our sanctification journey.

I don't want to keep beating a dead horse, and that is what we are doing. I have said pretty much all I want to say, so I bid you good night and God bless all of my brothers and sisters in Christ out there, regardless of what church you hang your hat in.

Chief: However, if you read the Scriptures you cited above more closely, Jesus always said that the Spirit would testify about Himself. He never asks the Spirit to testify about Joseph Smith. The truth is found no where else but in the person of Jesus,

GB: It appears you didn't really read all of the scriptures I posted.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH: . . . (emphasis mine)

Chief: and Jesus has been FULLY and COMPLETELY revealed to us in Scripture.

GB: Another BALD assertion. Also contradicted by the Bible 1 Cor 12:3 Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.

It is the Holy Ghost that reveals Jesus.

Chief: I, speaking for myself, need no other testament to the fact the Jesus is the Messiah promised to the world in the OT and delivered to the world in the NT.

GB:The Lord speaking in 2 Nephi 29:9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.
10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

To Jeff, Paul and Chief1989,

You all seem to be lost in a never ending loop defending the indefensible; that the Bible as we have it today is infallible...

Unfortunately it has some error, including missing scripture as originally given and yes, through whatever intent, it has some "changed" doctrine.

1. I refer you to Genesis 6:6. Why would an all knowing (Omnipotent) God ever have need to "Repent"? Did He not know man was going to become evil and corrupt and therefore He would need to destroy the earth with a flood? Or was He just winging it?

2. If the "Trinity" (a word not found in the Bible) were a true doctrine, then I would have to ask, Who was minding the universe when Jesus was a little baby in Mary's arms? Did your "three in one" (solid, gas and liquid) separate? Does that happen often?

3. Luke 3: 21-22 "Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened, and the HOLY GHOST descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased."

Can you explain this manifestation of THREE separate beings all at the same time as being "ONE" God? In your world can God appear together as three separate entities and still be ONE? Perhaps the Mormons polytheistic position of three SEPARATE and distinct entities, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost, all united as ONE in purpose to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man, really does make more sense, than say,

"...one living and true God, who is...invisible, without body, parts or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible..." (Presbyterian Church Confession of Faith, Chap. 2, art. 1).

Or "There is but one living and true God, everlasting, without body or parts, of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, the maker and preserver of all things, visible and invisible; and in unity of this Godhead there are three persons, of one substance, power and eternity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost." (Methodist Discipline, published in Toronto, 1886.)

When Jesus was resurrected and came back to show himself to thousands, did he have a body? What did he then do with it after ascending into heaven? And please don't insult my intelligence by saying he changed from a solid into a liquid into a gas...

Chief,

Thanks for being the one and true authority for determining how God's authority is or isn't properly passed along...I was confused by the scripture found in Hebrew 5:4-6:

4"And NO man taketh this honour unto HIMSELF, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron." (I'll let you research how Aaron was called).

5"So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee."

6"As he saith also in another place, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec."

Huh..., even Christ was made a high priest by God in the same order as Melchisedec?

Well for one who states he believes in following Christ...how do you justify assuming authority in a "very different" way than He did? or Aaron did?

rotorhead,

I think you missed the point. In Joseph Smith's own personal account of the transferral of authority, published in 1842, he stated that the angel conferred the authority on both he and Oliver. Smith and Cowdery then proceeded to baptize each other and confer on each other the Aaronic priesthood. However, according to the doctrine of the Mormon faith, an unbaptized person cannot baptize another person, or confer on him the priestly authority. What the angel should have done, in keeping with the Biblical statutes of ordaining priests, was to baptize both of them BEFORE conferring on them the priesthood, or he should have RE-CONFERRED the authority after they had baptized one another. Either way, if we are to believe Joseph Smith's own account of the episode, THERE IS NO WAY THAT THE AARONIC PRIESTHOOD WAS PASSED ON TO HE AND OLIVER COWDERY. If this was to happen nowadays in and LDS church, and an unbaptized person was to baptize someone else, would you recognize the validity of that baptism?

Also, another interesting point. According to the LDS, the church was in apostasy and the keys to the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods were both taken from the earth. However, according to LDS teachings (the sources are cited in my above post, so please do not come back with 'your claims are unsubstantiated, chief!' If you can read, you can see the LDS source) the apostle John and 3 Nephite apostles were left alive and will continue to live on the earth until Christ returns. Did John, an apostle who had seen Jesus in the flesh, not have any authority during 300AD-1830AD? What was he doing all this time if he could not act with authority?

Rotorhead, that is why I do not put my faith and trust in Mormon dogma, because it shifts and changes to suit the times. The beauty of Christianity is that it has held its own over 2,000 years, and against all who would try to stamp it out. You think Mormons have been unfairly persecuted over the last 160 years? It is estimated that 5 million Christians were killed from 100AD-321AD, before it was made the official religion of the Roman Empire. As many as 100 million have been martyred over the last 2 millenia, and they continue to be heavily persecuted in the Middle East, Asia, and some parts of muslim Africa. Were there times when the number of true believers waned? Of course. But there is always a remnant. Remember Elijah? He despaired when Jezebel found and killed the 100 other prophets of God, and he was all that remained. Yet, God did wonderful acts through him, and the number of the faithful in Israel grew as a result. In Ezekiel there were 7,000 faithful Jews scattered throughout the land. He didn't know where they were, but they were there.

Nobody has ever answered the question on how the Aaronic priesthood, which was hereditary and passed down by Aaron to his sons and descendants, could be conferred on a non-Jew who is not in Aaron's line. That has always puzzled me.

Anyway, peace out...

rotorhead,

Hebrews 5 is a beautiful chapter where a Father bestows glory and honor on His only begotten Son, an honor the Son did not claim for Himself, but His Father gives it to Him out of love. It also cites Psalm 110, which reads:

Psalm 110
Of David. A psalm.
1 The LORD says to my Lord:
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet."
2 The LORD will extend your mighty scepter from Zion;
you will rule in the midst of your enemies.

3 Your troops will be willing
on your day of battle.
Arrayed in holy majesty,
from the womb of the dawn
you will receive the dew of your youth. [a]

4 The LORD has sworn
and will not change his mind:
"You are a priest forever,
in the order of Melchizedek."

Of Melchizedek, that name appears 10 times in the Scriptures, twice in the Old Testament and eight times in the New. Here is what Hebrews 7 says about Melchizedek:

Hebrews 7
Melchizedek the Priest
1This Melchizedek was king of Salem and priest of God Most High. He met Abraham returning from the defeat of the kings and blessed him, 2and Abraham gave him a tenth of everything. First, his name means "king of righteousness"; then also, "king of Salem" means "king of peace." 3Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life, like the Son of God he remains a priest forever.

Who was Melchizedek? Without father or mother, without genealogy, without beginning of days or end of life? Does that sound like a mere man to you? Also, who else has been established "in the order of Melchizedek?" No one other than Jesus himself. The Aaronic line contained thousands of men, but only two people are ever listed in the Melchizedek line, the man himself (or was it God or Jesus?) and Jesus. No one, not me, not you, not Joseph Smith, and not the Pope, can claim the Melchizedek priesthood for ourselves. The line goes - Melchizedek - Jesus, with no one in between or after.

I am sorry, rotorhead, but the Melchizedek priesthood was never 'returned' or 'restored' to this earth. It resides in the person of Christ alone, and anyone who claims to have it blasphemes the Lord whom God said "Sit at my right hand".

Peace...

It is interesting to note that the Aaronic priesthood WILL return to earth sometime in our future. When? When the Jews rebuild the temple in Jerusalem and reinstitute the system of sacrifices. Then and only then will the Aaronic priesthood be revived. It was not revived in 1830, as you can see from the accounts above. Smith and Cowdery violated Scripture (they were not sons or descendants of Aaron) and they violated tenets of the church they were founding (no unbaptized person can baptize another person, nor can they infer any priestly authority upon anyone else).

Rotorhead,

What is the doctrine of the Trinity?

The doctrine of the Trinity is foundational to the Christian faith. It is crucial for properly understanding what God is like, how He relates to us, and how we should relate to Him. But it also raises many difficult questions. How can God be both one and three? Is the Trinity a contradiction? If Jesus is God, why do the Gospels record instances where He prayed to God?

While we cannot fully understand everything about the Trinity (or anything else), it is possible to answer questions like these and come to a solid grasp of what it means for God to be three in one.

What Does it Mean That God is a Trinity?
The doctrine of the Trinity means that there is one God who eternally exists as three distinct Persons--the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Stated differently, God is one in essence and three in person. These definitions express three crucial truths: (1) The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, (2) each Person is fully God, (3) there is only one God.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. The Bible speaks of the Father as God (Phil. 1:2), Jesus as God (Titus 2:13), and the Holy Spirit as God (Acts 5:3-4). Are these just three different ways of looking at God, or simply ways of referring to three different roles that God plays?

The answer must be no, because the Bible also indicates that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. For example, since the Father sent the Son into the world (John 3:16), He cannot be the same person as the Son. Likewise, after the Son returned to the Father (John 16:10), the Father and the Son sent the Holy Spirit into the world (John 14:26; Acts 2:33). Therefore, the Holy Spirit must be distinct from the Father and the Son.

In the baptism of Jesus, we see the Father speaking from heaven and the Spirit descending from heaven in the form of a dove as Jesus comes out of the water (Mark 1:10-11). In John 1:1 it is affirmed that Jesus is God and, at the same time, that He was "with God"-thereby indicating that Jesus is a distinct Person from God the Father (cf. also 1:18). And in John 16:13-15 we see that although there is a close unity between them all, the Holy Spirit is also distinct from the Father and the Son.

The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons means, in other words, that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father. Jesus is God, but He is not the Father or the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God, but He is not the Son or the Father. They are different Persons, not three different ways of looking at God.

The personhood of each member of the Trinity means that each Person has a distinct center of consciousness. Thus, they relate to each other personally--the Father regards Himself as "I," while He regards the Son and Holy Spirit as "You." Likewise the Son regards Himself as "I," but the Father and the Holy Spirit as "You."

Often it is objected that "If Jesus is God, then he must have prayed to himself while he was on earth." But the answer to this objection lies in simply applying what we have already seen. While Jesus and the Father are both God, they are different Persons. Thus, Jesus prayed to God the Father without praying to Himself. In fact, it is precisely the continuing dialog between the Father and the Son (Matthew 3:17; 17:5; John 5:19; 11:41-42; 17:1ff) which furnishes the best evidence that they are distinct Persons with distinct centers of consciousness.

Sometimes the Personhood of the Father and Son is appreciated, but the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is neglected. Sometimes the Spirit is treated more like a "force" than a Person. But the Holy Spirit is not an it, but a He (see John 14:26; 16:7-15; Acts 8:16). The fact that the Holy Spirit is a Person, not an impersonal force (like gravity), is also shown by the fact that He speaks (Hebrews 3:7), reasons (Acts 15:28), thinks and understands (1 Corinthians 2:10-11), wills (1 Corinthians 12:11), feels (Ephesians 4:30), and gives personal fellowship (2 Corinthians 13:14). These are all qualities of personhood. In addition to these texts, the others we mentioned above make clear that the Personhood of the Holy Spirit is distinct from the Personhood of the Son and the Father. They are three real persons, not three roles God plays.

Another serious error people have made is to think that the Father became the Son, who then became the Holy Spirit. Contrary to this, the passages we have seen imply that God always was and always will be three Persons. There was never a time when one of the Persons of the Godhead did not exist. They are all eternal.

While the three members of the Trinity are distinct, this does not mean that any is inferior to the other. Instead, they are all identical in attributes. They are equal in power, love, mercy, justice, holiness, knowledge, and all other qualities.

Each Person is fully God. If God is three Persons, does this mean that each Person is "one-third" of God? Does the Trinity mean that God is divided into three parts?

The Trinity does not divide God into three parts. The Bible is clear that all three Persons are each one hundred percent God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all fully God. For example, it says of Christ that "in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Colossians 2:9). We should not think of God as like a "pie" cut into three pieces, each piece representing a Person. This would make each Person less than fully God and thus not God at all. Rather, "the being of each Person is equal to the whole being of God."[1] The divine essence is not something that is divided between the three persons, but is fully in all three persons without being divided into "parts."

Thus, the Son is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. The Father is not one-third of the being of God, He is all of the being of God. And likewise with the Holy Spirit. Thus, as Wayne Grudem writes, "When we speak of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together we are not speaking of any greater being than when we speak of the Father alone, the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone."[2]

There is only one God. If each Person of the Trinity is distinct and yet fully God, then should we conclude that there is more than one God? Obviously we cannot, for Scripture is clear that there is only one God: "There is no other God besides me, a righteous God and a Savior; there is none besides me. Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth! For I am God, and there is no other" (Isaiah 45:21-22; see also 44:6-8; Exodus 15:11; Deuteronomy 4:35; 6:4-5; 32:39; 1 Samuel 2:2; 1 Kings 8:60).

Having seen that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are distinct Persons, that they are each fully God, and that there is nonetheless only one God, we must conclude that all three Persons are the same God. In other words, there is one God who exists as three distinct Persons.

If there is one passage which most clearly brings all of this together, it is Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit." First, notice that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinguished as distinct Persons. We baptize into the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. Second, notice that each Person must be deity because they are all placed on the same level. In fact, would Jesus have us baptize in the name of a mere creature? Surely not. Therefore each of the Persons into whose name we are to be baptized must be deity. Third, notice that although the three divine Persons are distinct, we are baptized into their name (singular), not names (plural). The three Persons are distinct, yet only constitute one name. This can only be if they share one essence.

Is the Trinity Contradictory?
This leads us to investigate more closely a very helpful definition of the Trinity which I mentioned earlier: God is one in essence, but three in Person. This formulation can show us why there are not three Gods, and why the Trinity is not a contradiction.

In order for something to be contradictory, it must violate the law of noncontradiction. This law states that A cannot be both A (what it is) and non-A (what it is not) at the same time and in the same relationship. In other words, you have contradicted yourself if you affirm and deny the same statement. For example, if I say that the moon is made entirely of cheese but then also say that the moon is not made entirely of cheese, I have contradicted myself.

Other statements may at first seem contradictory but are really not. Theologian R.C. Sproul cites as an example Dickens' famous line, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times." Obviously this is a contradiction if Dickens means that it was the best of times in the same way that it was the worst of times. But he avoids contradiction with this statement because he means that in one sense it was the best of times, but in another sense it was the worst of times.

Carrying this concept over to the Trinity, it is not a contradiction for God to be both three and one because He is not three and one in the same way. He is three in a different way than He is one. Thus, we are not speaking with a forked tongue-we are not saying that God is one and then denying that He is one by saying that He is three. This is very important: God is one and three at the same time, but not in the same way.

How is God one? He is one in essence. How is God three? He is three in Person. Essence and person are not the same thing. God is one in a certain way (essence) and three in a different way (person). Since God is one in a different way than He is three, the Trinity is not a contradiction. There would only be a contradiction if we said that God is three in the same way that He is one.

So a closer look at the fact that God is one in essence but three in person has helped to show why the Trinity is not a contradiction. But how does it show us why there is only one God instead of three? It is very simple: All three Persons are one God because, as we saw above, they are all the same essence. Essence means the same thing as "being." Thus, since God is only one essence, He is only one being-not three. This should make it clear why it is so important to understand that all three Persons are the same essence. For if we deny this, we have denied God's unity and affirmed that there is more than one being of God (i.e., that there is more than one God).

What we have seen so far provides a good basic understanding of the Trinity. But it is possible to go deeper. If we can understand more precisely what is meant by essence and person, how these two terms differ, and how they relate, we will then have a more complete understanding of the Trinity.

Essence and Person
Essence. What does essence mean? As I said earlier, it means the same thing as being. God's essence is His being. To be even more precise, essence is what you are. At the risk of sounding too physical, essence can be understood as the "stuff" that you "consist of." Of course we are speaking by analogy here, for we cannot understand this in a physical way about God. "God is spirit" (John 4:24). Further, we clearly should not think of God as "consisting of" anything other than divinity. The "substance" of God is God, not a bunch of "ingredients" that taken together yield deity.

Person. In regards to the Trinity, we use the term "Person" differently than we generally use it in everyday life. Therefore it is often difficult to have a concrete definition of Person as we use it in regards to the Trinity. What we do not mean by Person is an "independent individual" in the sense that both I and another human are separate, independent individuals who can exist apart from one another.

What we do mean by Person is something that regards himself as "I" and others as "You." So the Father, for example, is a different Person from the Son because He regards the Son as a "You," even though He regards Himself as "I." Thus, in regards to the Trinity, we can say that "Person" means a distinct subject which regards Himself as an "I" and the other two as a "You." These distinct subjects are not a division within the being of God, but "a form of personal existence other than a difference in being."[3]

How do they relate? The relationship between essence and Person, then, is as follows. Within God's one, undivided being is an "unfolding" into three personal distinctions. These personal distinctions are modes of existence within the divine being, but are not divisions of the divine being. They are personal forms of existence other than a difference in being. The late theologian Herman Bavinck has stated something very helpful at this point: "The persons are modes of existence within the being; accordingly, the Persons differ among themselves as the one mode of existence differs from the other, and-using a common illustration-as the open palm differs from a closed fist."[4]

Because each of these "forms of existence" are relational (and thus are Persons), they are each a distinct center of consciousness, with each center of consciousness regarding Himself as "I" and the others as "You." Nonetheless, these three Persons all "consist of" the same "stuff" (that is, the same "what," or essence). As theologian and apologist Norman Geisler has explained it, while essence is what you are, person is who you are. So God is one "what" but three "whos."

The divine essence is thus not something that exists "above" or "separate from" the three Persons, but the divine essence is the being of the three Persons. Neither should we think of the Persons as being defined by attributes added on to the being of God. Wayne Grudem explains:

But if each person is fully God and has all of God's being, then we also should not think that the personal distinctions are any kind of additional attributes added on to the being of God . . . Rather, each person of the Trinity has all of the attributes of God, and no one Person has any attributes that are not possessed by the others. On the other hand, we must say that the Persons are real, that they are not just different ways of looking at the one being of God...the only way it seems possible to do this is to say that the distinction between the persons is not a difference of `being' but a difference of `relationships.' This is something far removed from our human experience, where every different human `person' is a different being as well. Somehow God's being is so much greater than ours that within his one undivided being there can be an unfolding into interpersonal relationships, so that there can be three distinct persons.[5]

Trinitarian Illustrations?
There are many illustrations which have been offered to help us understand the Trinity. While there are some illustrations which are helpful, we should recognize that no illustration is perfect. Unfortunately, there are many illustrations which are not simply imperfect, but in error. One illustration to beware of is the one which says "I am one person, but I am a student, son, and brother. This explains how God can be both one and three." The problem with this is that it reflects a heresy called modalism. God is not one person who plays three different roles, as this illustration suggests. He is one Being in three Persons (centers of consciousness), not merely three roles. This analogy ignores the personal distinctions within God and mitigates them to mere roles.

Summary
Let us quickly review what we have seen.

1. The Trinity is not belief in three gods. There is only one God, and we must never stray from this.

2. This one God exists as three Persons.

3. The three Persons are not each part of God, but are each fully God and equally God. Within God's one undivided being there is an unfolding into three interpersonal relationships such that there are three Persons. The distinctions within the Godhead are not distinctions of His essence and neither are they something added on to His essence, but they are the unfolding of God's one, undivided being into three interpersonal relationships such that there are three real Persons.

4. God is not one person who took three consecutive roles. That is the heresy of modalism. The Father did not become the Son and then the Holy Spirit. Instead, there have always been and always will be three distinct persons in the Godhead.

5. The Trinity is not a contradiction because God is not three in the same way that He is one. God is one in essence, three in Person.

Application
The Trinity is first of all important because God is important. To understand more fully what God is like is a way of honoring God. Further, we should allow the fact that God is triune to deepen our worship. We exist to worship God. And God seeks people to worship Him in "spirit and truth" (John 4:24). Therefore we must always endeavor to deepen our worship of God-in truth as well as in our hearts.

The Trinity has a very significant application to prayer. The general pattern of prayer in the Bible is to pray to the Father through the Son and in the Holy Spirit (Ephesians 2:18). Our fellowship with God should be enhanced by consciously knowing that we are relating to a tri-personal God!

Awareness of the distinct role that each Person of the Trinity has in our salvation can especially serve to give us greater comfort and appreciation for God in our prayers, as well as helping us to be specific in directing our prayers. Nonetheless, while recognizing the distinct roles that each Person has, we should never think of their roles as so separate that the other Persons are not involved. Rather, everything that one Person is involved in, the other two are also involved in, one way or another.

Notes

1.Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (InterVarsity Press and Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), p. 255, emphasis added.
2. Ibid, 252.
3. Ibid, p. 255. While I believe that this is a helpful definition, it should be recognized that Grudem himself is offering this as more of an explanation than definition of Person.
4. Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, (Great Britain: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1991 edition), p. 303.
5. Grudem, pp. 253-254.

Further Resources

Augustine, On the Trinity
Herman Bavinck, The Doctrine of God, pp. 255-334
Edward Bickersteth, The Trinity.
Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, chapter 14
Donald Macleod, Shared Life: The Trinity and the Fellowship of God's People
R.C. Sproul, The Mystery of the Holy Spirit
R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, pp. 35-36
J.I. Packer, Knowing God, pp. 57-63.
John Piper, The Pleasures of God, chapter 1
James White, The Forgotten Trinity

The thing we have to remember about God, is that He is not constrained by this world and our view of it for He is God. He can do anything He so desires. God is not limited by anything for He created all things

Rotorhead,

I am not an 'opponent' of Mormonism. On the contrary, I am an advocate of the truth. I have said on this board before, I believe i will see many of my Mormon brothers and sisters in heaven, and that is reason for rejoicing.

Regarding the "truth" of the book of Mormon, please consider the following article, and please note that it is not from an "anti-Mormon" website:

Mostly about Books
___________

SOLOMON SPAULDING'S MANUSCRIPT
BY JOHN LAKMORD WAYNE

ONE of the greatest curiosities of American literature was the Rev. Solomon Spaulding's "Manuscript Found." No copy of this curious romance of a prehistoric American race is now known to exist. The discovery of the manuscript would mean a fortune to the person discovering it, providing he knew its history and value, but there is great reason to believe that this curious romance inspired by the great mounds of Ohio will never be found. There is no positive proof that the Spaulding manuscript was destroyed by agents of the Church of Christ [of] Latter Day Saints but it would have been policy for that sect to see that it was destroyed as a diplomatic measure. The reason for the Mormon interest in Spaulding's "Manuscript Found" lay in the fact that while written prior to the calling of Joseph Smith, to be a prophet of the new faith, the Spaulding romance included in its cast of characters such names as "Mormon," "Maroni," "Lamenite," and "Nephi." There were people in the early days of Mormonism who believed that the Prophet Smith not only stole the plot of his "Book of Mormon" from the Spaulding Manuscript but that he even lacked the wit to change the names of its principal characters. I believe it was the late Elbert Hubbard who said Edgar Allen Poe could have made a more interesting book on the same foundation if he had given some time to the idea. The "Book of Mormon," while considered a work of divine revelation by the followers of Smith, is far from a literary classic. It would be interesting to have the lost Spaulding manuscript for the purposes of comparison. From what we know of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding we are inclined to believe that for interesting reading his work would be of more literary value than the translation of the plates made by Smith. If the "Book of Mormon" was inspired perhaps Spaulding was the first prophet called, but he failed to answer. The coincidence of names in the "Manuscript Found" and "The Book of Mormon" inclines to the belief that Smith was a plagiarist if not a prophet.

Solomon Spaulding was born at Ashford, Connecticut, in 1761, was graduated from Dartmouth College in 1785, studied divinity, preached a few years and then, from ill health, gave up the ministry. Spaulding was a peculiar man, of fine education, especially devoted to historical study, and with a great fondness for writing romances. In 1812 he resided in Conneaut, Ashtabula county, Ohio. The great mounds in the vicinity aroused the curiosity of Spaulding who caused excavations to be made and it is said his workers found skeletons and other relics of a prehistoric race. On these discoveries and with a good imagination Spaulding wrote his "Manuscript Found," which he called a translation from some hieroglypgical writing exhumed from the mound. This romance purported to be a history of the peopling of America by the lost tribes of Israel, the tribes and their leaders having very singular names among which were Mormon, Maroni, Lamenite, and Nephi. The work of Spaulding's was written in 1812, and the manuscript was read to a circle of admiring friends. They thought it was good and he decided to publish it and carried it for this purpose to Patterson, a printer at Pittsburgh, Pa. After keeping it for a time Patterson returned it to Spaulding with the advice to polish it up, finish it, and make some money out of it. At the time the manuscript was in the possession of Patterson he had in his employ Sidney Rigdon, who twenty years later was a well known preacher among the Mormons.

In 1823, Joseph Smith, the possessor of a seer stone, made his living by wandering from place to place professing to discover gold and silver and lost articles by means of this remarkable possession. In that year he announced that he had been directed in a vision to unearth some gold plates from a hill near Palmyra, N. Y. These plates were curiously inscribed.

In 1825, Mr. Thurlow Weed was publishing the "Rochester Telegraph" and Smith came to him to have a book published. Weed thought the inspired work of Smith's was "incomprehensible jargon" and refused to publish it. A few days later Smith returned with a farmer named Harris who offered to finance the publishing of the book. The book was afterwards published in Palmyra, in 1830 to be exact, by E. B. Grandin. Two years later the Mormon religion began to gain ground. The history of the rise of Mormonism can be found in standard reference works. We shall return to the Spaulding manuscript and its history.

Spaulding died at Amity, Pa. in 1816. His wife then went to reside with her brother, William H. Sabine at Onondaga Valley, Onondaga county, N. Y. The manuscript concerning the lost tribes of Israel and other unpublished works of the deceased author were carried to Sabine's place in an old trunk. While there his daughter had occasion to glance over the manuscripts. In 1820, Mrs. Spaulding remarried and took up her residence at Hartwicks, N. Y., and the trunk with its manuscripts sent to her at that place. About 1830, the author's widow went to Monson, Mass. to reside with her daughter. The trunk was left in the care of Mr. Jerome Clark of Hartwicks.

A Mormon meeting at Conneaut, where the "Book of Mormon" was read reminded John Spaulding of his brother's work of years previous. Other friends commented on the similarity of the works and the Mormons had a dispute on their hands.

In 1834, a man named Hurlburt arrived at Monson, Mass., in search of the Spaulding manuscript. He had a letter from Sabine requesting his sister to loan the manuscript to Hurlburt in order to help uproot the "Mormon case." She consented to loan the manuscript and gave Hurlburt a letter to Clarke authorizing the opening of the trunk. Hurlburt obtained the manuscript but never returned it to the Spaulding family. It was rumored that he sold it to the Mormons for $300 and that they destroyed it.

Another coincidence in the history of the "Manuscript Found" is that it was in the trunk at Sabine's house during a period when Joseph Smith was employed on the Sabine farm. The trunk was unlocked and Smith could have had an opportunity to read the manuscript. This seems very probable for both stories are alike and the peculiar names occur nowhere but in these two books.

In 1880, M. S. McKinstry, the daughter of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding made an affidavit telling what she knew of the facts in the history of the manuscript. On this affidavit Ellen E. Dickinson based her story entitled "The Book of Mormon" which was published in Scribner's Monthly in the number for August, 1880. At that time the Mormons were quite a political problem and the subject was of current interest. On her facts we have based the present article which we offer as one of the curiosities of American literature.
----------------------------

I am sure that you have heard this before. Of course, none of us were there so there is no way to settle the claim of 'did Smith or did he not receive a visitation from heavenly personages, or did he copy the plot for the Book of Mormon from Spaulding's manuscript?'

But I find fascinating that Spaulding's manuscript was about the lost tribes of Israel coming to America, building a highly civilized society, fighting bloody battles, and having names like Mormon, Maroni, Nephi, and Lamenite. The parallels are too similar to be discounted or thrown out. Methinks personally that Joseph Smith had a very active imagination, happened upon Spaulding's manuscript in the trunk, and took it for himself to create his own religion, for the purpose of making it rich. He did not realize that dream, but Brigham Young sure did.

Anyway, interesting food for thought, and one more reason that I have READ THE BOOK (partway through, anyway) and I cannot affirm it as anything more than a story of events that did not happen and of people who never existed. The whole crux of Mormonism rests on the truth of the story and the veracity of the prophet, and I cannot give credence to either one.

However, rotorhead, if you are seeking to grow in your relationship with Christ and you leave the other questionable doctrines behind, amen and more power to you! True salvation is found in no other name than Jesus. If you believe that, rock on!

Peace...

The Spaulding Theory Debunked By: Russell Anderson

Many Critics of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints have claimed that Joseph Smith used a manuscript written by Solomon Spalding as the basis for the Book of Mormon. In making this claim, these Critics have resorted to the wrongful use of parallels in historic analysis, thus undermining their credibility as serious, and objective, analyzers of history and religion. In fact, Fawn Brodie, an avowed critic of the LDS Church, in her book, "No Man Knows my History", gives several good reasons why she thinks the theory has no basis.

The theory was originally given credance by "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut who collected affidavits from residents of Ohio who had heard Spaulding read his manuscript and they thought the Book of Mormon sounded similar. When Spalding's manuscript was shown to them, they could see that there were major differences, so then they claimed that Spalding wrote a later manuscript. Spalding's manuscript was lost for many years. When it was found and published in 1884 it was obvious that the only way the theory could be maintained was to maintain that there was a second manuscript.

Dr. Walter Martin, another avowed critic of the LDS Church, takes the Spaulding theory one step further. He was so convinced that the Spalding manuscript was the source of the Book of Mormon that he has supported the outlandish effort to prove that an unknown scribe of the Book of Mormon was actually Spalding. His assertion will also be dealt with below.

I will review the theory in 8 areas:

1. The Original affidavits
2. 
   Non-Hurlbut affidavits
3. 
   Spalding's Manuscript
4. 
   "Second" Manuscript and connection
   to Book of Mormon
5. 
   Manuscript found in Hawaii
6. 
   Conclusive Proof that 1884 find is the "Second"
   manuscript
7. 
   Handwriting Analysis Blind Alley
8. 
   Appendix B from No Man Knows My History

The Original Affidavits The Spaulding theory for the source of the Book of Mormon was started by "Doctor" Philastus Hurlbut. He heard that citizens of Ohio thought they recognized similarities between the Book of Mormon and an earlier manuscript prepared by Dr. Solomon Spaulding. Affidavits from these residents were published in Mormonism Unvailed in 1835. Fawn Brodie and Lester Bush have commented about those statements.

It can clearly be seen that the affidavits were written by Hurlbut, since the style is the same throughout. It may be noted also that although five out of the eight had heard Spaulding's story only once, there was a surprising uniformity in the details they remembered after twenty-two years. Six recalled the names Nephi, Lamanite, etc.; six held that the manuscript described the Indians as descendants of the lost ten tribes; four mentioned that the great wars caused the erection of the Indian mounds; and four noted the ancient scriptural style. The very tightness with which Hurlbut here was implementing his theory rouses an immediate suspicion that he did a little judicious prompting. (Brodie 1963, 423-4)

The most striking aspect of the early claims unquestionably related to the proper names. Here, however, the coincidence of memory was even more suspect. Of some 300 potential names, Hurlbut's witnesses all used the same handful of specific examples. Most cited "Nephi" and "Lehi." Two witnesses (John and Martha Spalding) added "Nephites" and "Lamanites," and only three additional names were mentioned even once-"Laban," "Zarahemla" and "Moroni," (The last two by the witness who remembered the humorous passages). Despite the elapsed decades, all recalled identical spellings for these odd-sounding names, spellings which matched exactly those found in the Book of Mormon. A corollary claim that Spalding wrote in a "scripture style" was illustrated with the same unanimity. Everyone who recalled specific wording cited "and it came to pass," with "now it came to pass" a distant second. Not surprisingly, nearly everyone acknowledged that his memory had been refreshed by a recent reading of the Book of Mormon.(Bush 1977, 44)

Non-Hurlbut Affidavits If these sources where influenced by Hurlbut, what about statements from people who had seen or heard the manuscript who were not interviewed by Hurlbut. What do they say?

The Mormons replied with books and pamphlets of their own, such as Parley P. Pratt's Mormonism Unveiled in 1838 and Benjamin Winchester's The Origin of the Spaulding Story in 1840. Winchester quoted another of Spaulding's neighbors, one Jackson, who had read Spaulding's manuscript and maintained "that there was no agreement between them; for, said he, Mr. Spaulding's manuscript was a very small work, in the form of a novel, saying not one word about the children of Israel, but professed to give an account of a race of people who originated from the Romans, which Mr. Spaulding said he had translated from a Latin parchment that he had found." (Brodie 1963, 427)

And an early historian of western New York, writing in 1851, said: "It is believed by all those best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movements, that there is no foundation for the statement that the original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio." (Brodie 1963, 430)

Spalding's Manuscript Hurlbut obtained the manuscript and showed it to Spaulding's neighbors. "This old M.S. has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates, and writing in the old scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to the "Manuscript Found." (Howe 1834, 288)

Brodie comments, "This surmise may have been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize." (Brodie 1963, 424-425)

"Second" Manuscript and connection to Book of Mormon The solution to a correct understanding is contained in the fact that Spalding moved to Pennsylvania in 1812. If Solomon started another manuscript he would have had to started it before he left Ohio, since they claim to have heard a different story than was contained in the manuscript which Hurlbut found. In fact Rev. Abner Jackson goes so far as to say, "about the beginning of the year 1812, commenced to write his famous romance called by him the Manuscript Found." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 61) We can also be assured that anyone who was acquainted with the manuscript in Pennsylvania would be dealing with this "second" manuscript.

Two people closely associated with Spaulding in Pennsylvania have supplied affidavits about the similarities between his manuscript and the Book of Mormon. They made some latter statements which are suspect because they greatly enlarged their memory of the manuscript. However, if we ignore those statements and stick with what they first reported we can be more sure that they are not influenced by continued association with the Book of Mormon and the Spaulding controversy. First of all from Joseph Miller who spent "spent many evenings in the Spalding home (tavern), often listening to the retired preacher read his novel." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 67)

These papers were detached sheets of foolscap. He said he wrote the papers as a novel. He called it the "Manuscript Found," or "The Lost Manuscript Found." He said he wrote it to pass away the time when he was unwell; and after it was written he thought he would publish it as a novel, as a means to support his family.

Some time since, a copy of the book of Mormon came into my hands. My son read it for me, as I have a nervous shaking of the head that prevents me from reading. I noticed several passages which I recollect having heard Mr. Spaulding read from his "Manuscript." One passage on the 148th page (the copy I have is published by J. 0. Wright & Co., New York) I remember distinctly. He speaks of a battle, and says the Amalekites had marked themselves with red on the foreheads to distinguish them from the Nephites. The thought of being marked on the "forehead with red was so strange, it fixed itself in my memory. This together with other passages I remember to have heard Mr. Spaulding read from his "Manuscript."

Those who knew Mr. Spaulding will soon all be gone, and I among the rest. I write that what I knew may become a matter of history; and that it may prevent people from being led into Mormonism, that most seductive delusion of the devil. From what I know of Mr. Spaulding's "Manuscript" and the book of Mormon, I firmly believe that Joseph Smith, by some means, got possession of Mr. Spaulding's "Manuscript," and possibly made some changes in it and called it the "Book of Mormon." (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 67-69)

Here we have Mr. Miller relating to us his strongest recollection of what he remembered was in both the Book of Mormon and the Spalding manuscript. And what is that? That the Amlekites marked themselves with a red mark. If we found the real Spalding manuscript we would expect to find a passage somewhere that describes a warring people that marked themselves with a red. Redick McKee who also lived in Amity, Pennsylvania had a similar remembrance about the Spalding manuscript.

I recollect quite well Mr. Spalding spending much time in writing on sheets of paper torn out of an 0ld book, what purported to be a veritable history of the nations or tribes, who inhabited Canaan when, or before that country was invaded by the Israelites under Joshua. He described with great particularity, their numbers, customs, modes of life, their wars, strategems, victories, and defeats, &c. His style was flowing and grammatical, though gaunt and abrupt; very like the story of the ' Maccabees" and other apochryphal books in the old bibles. He called it "Lost History Found," -- "Lost Manuscript," or some such name; not disguising that it was wholly a work of the imagination, written to amuse himself, and without any immediate view to publication. I read, or heard him read, many wonderful and amusing passages from different parts of his professed historical records; aud was struck with the minutences of his details, and the apparent truthfulness and sincerity of the author. Defoe's veritable Robinson Crusoe, was not more reliable! I have an indistinct recollection of the passage referred to by Mr. Miller, about the Amelekites making a cross with red paint on their foreheads to distinguish them from enemies in the confusion of battle, but the manuscript was full of equally ludicrous descriptions. After my removal to Wheeling in 1818, 1 understood, that Mr. Spalding had died, and his widow had resorted to her friends in northern Ohio, or western New York. She would naturally take the manuscript with her. Now it was in northern Ohio, probably in Lake or Ashtabula county, that the first Mormon prophet, or imposter Jo. Smith lived, and published what he called the "Book of Mormon," or the "Mormon Bible." It is quite probable therefore, that with some alterations, the "Book of Mormon was in fact the "Lost Book," or "Lost History Found," of my old landlord, Solomon Spalding, of Amity, Washington County, Pennsylvania. (Cowdrey, Davis, Scales 1977, 77-78)

Here again we have a witness and the best detail he can remember about the Spalding manuscript was "making a cross with red paint on their foreheads." These two witnesses would definitely have heard the correct Spalding manuscript, but their affidavits don't have the benefit of judicious prompting from someone like Hurlbut. Manuscript found in Hawaii The Spalding manuscript was found among the paper of L. L. Rice in Hawaii in 1884. Hurlbut had given the manuscript to Howe who described it in "Mormonism Unvailed." It was among his papers when he sold his business to Rice and followed him to Hawaii. On a blank page was the following statement which refers to the Hurlbut's original witnesses.

The writings of Solomon Spalding, proved by Aaron Wright, Oliver Smith, John N. Miller and others. The testimonies of the above gentlemen are now in my possession. D. P. Hurlbut (Spalding 1885, 9)

The critics of the Book of Mormon have maintained that this manuscript was not the "second" manuscript which is more similar to the Book of Mormon. But we can examine the contents. Does it contain the information that Miller and M'Kee remembered in Pennsylvania? We find the following in chapter III of the published Spalding Manuscript: "Their clothing consisted of skins dressed with the hair on, but in warm weather only the middle part of their bodies were incumbered with any covering. The one half of the head of the men were shaved & painted with red and the one half of the face was painted with black." This manuscript has the very characteristic required by the actual Spalding manuscript. Conclusive Proof that 1884 find is the "Second" manuscript This by itself would not be enough to proclaim for certain that there was only one Spalding manuscript. However the manuscript provides one other piece of irrefutable evidence that the manuscript that has been found and publish was the only manuscript and the one that was being worked on in Pennsylvania. Remember that Solomon supposedly started working on the second manuscript in 1812 before he moved to Pittsburgh. About three-fourths of the way through this manuscript Solomon used the back of a letter for a page of the manuscript. That letter is as follows:

Fond Parents
I have received two letters the 10th jan 1812 the last mentioned Mr. Kings dismission from you, which no doubt is great trial to you Christian Minister is great loss to any to any people - - - - teaches us the uncertainty of all sublinary enjoyments & where to place our better trust & happiness (Spalding 1885, 105)

This letter's placement within the manuscript firmly establishes that the part of the manuscript which comes after this was written after 1812. This in combination with the witnesses from Pennsylvania confirms that there was only one Spalding manuscript. This manuscript bears only a slight resemblance to the Book of Mormon. Mr. Rice commented on this manuscript:

This Manuscript does not purport to be "a story of the Indians formerly occupying this continent'" but is a history of the wars between the Indians of Ohio and Kentucky, and their progress in civilization, &c. It is certain that this Manuscript is not the origin of the Mormon Bible, whatever some other manuscript may have been. The only similarity between them, is, in the manner in which each purports to have been found -- one in a cave on Conneaut Creek -- the other in a hill in Ontario county, New York. There is no similarity of style between them. As I told Mr. Deming, I should as soon think the Book of Revelations was written by the author of Don Quixotte, as that the writer of this Manuscript was the author of the Book of Mormon. (Spalding 1885, 7)

Handwriting Analysis Blind Alley Dr. Walter Martin who never wanted to give up on the idea of Spalding as the source for the Book of Mormon, supported Wayne L. Cowdrey, Howard A. Davis & Donald R. Scales in resurrecting the theory with an even more unfounded claim that one of the authors of the Book of Mormon manuscript was Solomon Spalding. This is a really crazy because that same unknown author also wrote the 56th section of the Doctrine and Covenants in 1831. That would be hard for a man who died in 1818. Of the three handwriting experts employed to examine the handwriting, two of them concluded that Solomon Spalding definitely did not write the manuscript page of the Book of Mormon.

From Henry W. Silver: "Based upon that examination, it is my conclusion that the handwriting of the twelve pages from I Nephi of the Book of Mormon (the unknown scribe) is definitely not the same as that of Solomon Spaulding." (Brown 1984, 20)

From Howard C. Doudler: "As I stated in my report dated March 4, 1977 of some writing similarities and letter charateristics appeared both in the manuscript and the Book of Mormon. I now contribute these similarities to the writing style of that century. I have found writing and letter dis-similarities that are unexplainable and are not attributed to individual writing variations of the same writer. It is my conclusion the handwriting in the name of Solomon Spalding is NOT the author of the unidentified pages, listed as Q-1 thru Q-9 in this report of the Book of Mormon" (Brown 1984, 37)

Gerald Tanner, a Mormon critic also viewed the original documents and stated, "After looking carefully at the revelation [D&C 56], I became convinced that it was probably written by the same scribe who wrote the 12 contested pages in the Book of Mormon manuscript. Both manuscripts in turn differed from Spalding's work in important features." (Brown 1984, 32)

The Spalding theory will probably never die. It has no basis in fact and will be discarded by anyone who seriously examines the issue. Fawn Brodie made a study of the theory and concluded that it had no basis. She listed the whereabouts of Sidney Rigdon during the period before the Book of Mormon was published. But, because she didn't account for every single month, some authors have used this as a pretense to give the theory some life. I am including the following appendix from Brodie's book, No Man Knows My History.

Appendix B from No Man Knows My History APPENDIX B

THE SPAULDING-RIGDON THEORY

THE SPAULDING RIGDON theory of the authorship of the Book of Mormon is based on a heterogeneous assortment of letters and affidavits collected between 1833 and 1900. When heaped together without regard to chronology, as in Charles A. Shook's True Origin of the Book of Mormon, and without any consideration of the character of either Joseph Smith or Sidney Rigdon, they seem impressive. But the theory is based first of all on the untenable assumption that Joseph Smith had neither the wit nor the learning to write the Book of Mormon, and it disregards the fact that the style of the Book of Mormon is identical with that of the Mormon prophet's later writings, such as the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, but is completely alien to the turgid rhetoric of Rigdon's sermons.

Protagonists of the theory do not explain why, if Rigdon wrote the Book of Mormon, he was content to let Joseph Smith found the Mormon Church and hold absolute dominion over it throughout the years, so secure in his position that he several times threatened Rigdon with excommunication when Rigdon opposed his policies. But most important, there is no good evidence to show that Rigdon and Smith ever met before Rigdon's conversion late in 1830.There is, on the contrary, abundant proof that between September 1827and June 1829, when the Book of Mormon was being written, Rigdon was a successful Campbellite preacher in northern Ohio, who if conniving secretly with Joseph Smith, three hundred miles east, was so accomplished a deceiver that none of his intimate friends ever entertained the slightest suspicion of it.

The Spaulding theory was not born until 1833, four years after the Book of Mormon was completed. In June 1833 Philastus Hurlbut was excommunicated from the Mormon Church in Kirtland, Ohio. Shortly afterward he learned that some citizens of Conneaut, Ohio, had detected in the Book of Mormon a resemblance to an old manuscript written more than twenty years earlier by Solomon Spaulding, a Dartmouth College graduate and ex-preacher, who had hoped to publish it and solve his financial embarrassments. Huribut interviewed these people in August and September 1833. They told him that Spaulding, now deceased, had lived in Conneaut from 1809 to 1812, and that he had written a historical novel about the American abcrigines from which he had occasionally read them extracts. Spaulding had moved to Pennsylvania, where he died in 1816.

From Solomon Spaulding's brother, John, Hurlbut obtained an affidavit, of which the significant portion read as follows:

I made him a visit [in 1813)... and found that he had failed, and was considerably involved in debt. He told me that he had been writing a book, which he intended to have printed, the avails of which he thought would enable him to pay all his debts. The book was entitled the "Manuscript Pound," of which he read to me many passages. It was an historical romance of the first settlers of America, endeavoring to show that the American Indians are the descendants of the Jews, or the lost tribes. It gave a detailed account of their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till they arrived in America, under the command of NEPHI and LEHI. They afterwards had quarrels and contentions, and separated into two distinct nations, one of which he denominated Nephites and the other Lamanites. Cruel and bloody wars ensued, in which great multitudes were slain. They buried their dead in large heaps, which caused the mounds so com\mon in this country. Their arts, sciences and civilization were brought 'into view, in order to account for all the curious antiquities, found various parts of North and South America. I have recently read the Book of Mormon, and to my great surprise I find nearly the same historical matter, names, etc. as they were in my brother's writings. I well remember that he wrote in the old style, and commenced about every other sentence with "and it came to pass" or "now it came to pass;' the same as in the Book of Mormon, and according to the best of my recollection and belief, it is the same as my brother Solomon wrote, with the exception of the religious matter. By what means it has fallen into the hands of Joseph Smith, Jr. I am unable to determine. JOHN SPAULDING

Martha, wife of John Spaulding, corroborated her husband's account:

I was personally acquainted with Solomon Spaulding, about twenty years ago. It was at his house a short time before he left Conneaut; he was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people. He had for many years contended that the aborigines of America were the descendants of some of the lost tribes of Israel, and this idea he carried out in the book in question. The lapse of time which has intervened, prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names of Nephi, and Lehi are yet fresh in my' memory, as being the principal heroes of his tale. They were officers of the company which first came off from Jerusalem. He gave a particular account of their journey by land and sea, till they arrived in America, after which, disputes arose between the chiefs, which caused them to separate into different bands, one of which was called Lamanites and the other Nephites. Between these were recounted tremendous battles, which frequently covered the ground with the slain; and their being buried in large heaps was the cause of the numerous mounds in the country. Some of these people he represented as being very large. I have read the hook of Mormon, which has brought fresh to my recollection the writings of Solomon Spaulding; and I have no manner of doubt that the historical part of it, is the same that I read and heard read, more than twenty years ago. The old obsolete style, and the phrases of "and it came to pass," etc., are the same. MARTHA SPAULDING

Six of Spaulding's neighbors made additional statements, of which the most important extracts are given below:

I formed a co-partnership with Solomon Spaulding for the purpose of rebuilding a forge. . . . He very frequently read to me from a manuscript which he was writing, which was entitled the "Manuscript Found.". . . This book represented the American Indians as the descendants of the lost tribes, gave an account of their leaving Jerusalem, their contentions and wars, which were many and great. One time, when he was reading to me the tragic account of Laban, I pointed out to him what I considered an inconsistency, which he promised to correct; but by referring to the Book of Mormon, I find to my surprise that it stands there just as he read it to me then. Some months ago I borrowed the Golden Bible. . . . I was astonished to find the same passages in it that Spaulding had read to me more than twenty years before, from his "Manuscript Found." Since that time, I have more fully examined the said Golden Bible, and have no hesitation in saying that the historical part of it is principally, if not wholly taken from the "Manuscript Found." I well recollect telling Mr. Spaulding that the so frequent use of the words "And it came to pass," "Now it came to pass," rendered it ridiculous. HENRY LAKE

I boarded and lodged in the family of said Spaulding for several months. I was soon introduced to the manuscripts of Spaulding, and perused them as often as I had leisure. He had written two or three books or pamphlets, on different subjects; but that which more particularly drew my attention, was one which he called the "Manuscript Found." From this he would frequently read some humorous passages to the company present. It purported to be the history of the first settlement of America, before discovered by Columbus. He brought them off from Jerusalem, under their leaders, detailing their travels by land and water, their manners, customs, laws, wars, etc. He said that he designed it as an historical novel. . . . I have recently examined the Book of Mormon, and find in it the writings of Solcmon Spaulding, from beginning to end, but mixed up with Scripture and other religious matter, which I did not meet with in the "Manuscript Found." Many of the passages in the Mormon book are verbatim from Spaulding, and others in part. The names of Nephi, Lehi, Moroni, and in fact all the principal names are brought fresh to my recollection by the Gold Bible. When Spaulding divested his history of its fabulous names, by a verbal explanation, he landed his people near the Straits of Darien, which I am very confident he called Zarahemla. They were marched about the country for a length of time, in which great wars and great bloodshed ensued, he brought them across North America in a northeast direction. JOHN N. MILLER

I first became acquainted with Solomon Spaulding in 1809 or 10, when he commenced building a forge on Conneaut Creek. When at his house, one day, he showed and read to me a history he was writing of the lost tribes of Israel, purporting that they were the first settlers of America, and that the Indians were their descendants. Upon this subject we had frequent conversations. He traced their journey from Jerusalem to America, as it is given in the Book of Mormon, excepting the religious matter. The historical part of the Book of Mormon, I know to be the same as I read and heard read from the writings of Spaulding, more than twenty years ago; the names more especially are the same without any alteration. . . . Spaulding had many other manuscripts, which I expect to see when Smith translates his other plate. In conclusion, I will observe, that the names of, and most of the historical part of the Book of Mormon, were as familiar to me before I read it as most modern history. AARON WRIGHT

All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in America, give an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way, he would give a satisfactory account of all of the old mounds, so common to this country. During the time he was at my house, I read and heard read one hundred pages or more. Nephi and Lehi were by him represented as leading characters, when they first started for America. Their main object was to escape the judgments which they supposed were coming upon the old world. But no religious matter was introduced as I now recollect. . . When I heard the historical part of it [the Book of Mormon] related, I at once said it was the writings of old Solomon Spaulding. Soon after, I obtained the book, and on reading it, found much of it the same as Spaulding had written, more than twenty years before. OLIVER SMITH

I have lately read the Book of Mormon, and believe it to be the same as Spaulding wrote, except the religious part. He told me that he intended to get his writings published in Pittsburgh. NAHUM HOWARD

The following is from the unsigned statement of Artemus Cunningham:

Before showing me his manuscripts, he went into a verbal relation of its outlines, saying that it was a fabulous or romantic history of the first settlement of this country, and as it purported to have been a record found buried in the earth, or in a cave, he had adopted the ancient or scripture style of writing. He then presented his manuscripts, when we sat down and spent a good share of the night in reading them, and conversing upon them. I well remember the name of Nephi, which appeared to be the principal hero of the story. The frequent repetition of the phrase, "I Nephi," I recollect as distinctly as though it was hut yesterday, although the general features of the story have passed from my memory, through the lapse of 22 years. He ~attempted to account for the numerous antiquities which are found upon this continent, and remarked that, after this generation had passed away, his account of the first inhabitants of America would be considered as authentic as any other history. The Mormon Bible I have partially examined, and am fully of the opinion that Solomon Spaulding had written its outlines before he left Conneaut.*

It can clearly be seen that the affidavits were written by Hurlbut, since the style is the same throughout. It may be noted also that although five out of the eight had heard Spaulding's story only once, there was a surprising uniformity in the details they remembered after twenty-two years. Six recalled the names Nephi, Lamanite, etc.; six hcld that the manuscript described the Indians as descendants of the lost ten tribes; four mentioned that the great wars caused the erection of the Indian mounds; and four noted the ancient scriptural style. The very tightness with which Huribut here was implementing his theory rouses an immediate suspicion that he did a little judicious prompting.

However, the affidavits were arresting, and Huribut knew it. He visited Spaulding's widow in Massachusetts and offered her half the profits for permission to publish the manuscript. She told him that "Spaulding had a great variety of manuscripts" and recollected that one was entitled the "Manuscript Found," but of its contents she "had no distinct knowledge." During the two ears she had lived in Pittsburgh, Spaulding had taken the manuscript to the office of Patterson and Lambdin, she said but whether or not it had been returned was uncertain.

She gave Hurlbut permission to examine Spaulding's papers in the attic of a farmhouse in Otsego County, New York; but he found there only one manuscript, which was clearly not the source for the Book of Mormon. This was a romance supposedly translated from twenty-four rolls of parchment covered with Latin, found in a cave on the banks of Conneaut Creek. It was written in modern English and was about 45,000 words long, one sixth the length of the Book of Mormon. It was an adventure story of some Romans sailing to Britain before the Christian era, who had been blown to America during a violent storm.

Hurlbut showed this manuscript to Spaulding's neighbors, who, he said, recognized it as Spaulding's, but stated that it was not the "Manuscript Found." Spaulding "had altered his first plan of writing, by going farther back with dates and writing in the Old Scripture style, in order that it might appear more ancient." This surmise may have been true, though there was no signed statement swearing to it. But it seems more likely that these witnesses had so come to identify the Book of Mormon with the Spaulding manuscript that they could not concede having made an error without admitting to a case of memory substitution which they did not themselves recognize.

Hurlbut, at least, was certain that Spaulding had written a second manuscript. Eber D. Howe, Hurlbut's collaborator, now wrote to Robert Patterson, the Pittsburgh printer mentioned by Spaulding's widow. He replied "that he had no recollection of any manuscript being brought there for publication, neither would he have been likely to have seen it, as the business of printing was conducted wholly by Lambdin at that time." The partnership of Patterson and Lambdin had not in fact been formed until January 1, 1818, two years after Spaulding's death.

Disappointed in this source, and unable to get any confirming evidence from Joseph's neighbors in western New York, Hurlbut had to be content with insinuating that Sidney Rigdon, who had once lived in Pittsburgh, was somehow responsi ble for getting the Spaulding manuscript into Joseph Smith's hands.

Howe now purchased Hurlbut's affidavits for five hundred dollars and published them in his Mormonism Unvailed. At once the Mormons challenged Howe to produce the Spaulding manuscript, but he did not even produce the one Hurlbut had uncovered, which shortly disappeared. Some writers insinuated that Hurlbut had sold it to the Mormons for a fabulous sum; actually it lay buried in Howe's files, which were later inherited by L. L. Rice, who followed Howe as editor of the Painesville Telegraph. Rice eventually went to Honolulu and there discovered the manuscript among his papers. He forwarded it to Joseph H. Fairchild, president of Oberlin College, who placed it in the college library. The manuscript contained a certificate of its identity signed by Hurlbut, Wright, Miller, and others, and bore the penciled inscription "Manuscript Story" on the outside. Its discovery was jubilantly hailed by the Mormons, who held that the Spaulding theory was now proved groundless. The manuscript was first published by the Reorganized Church in Lamoni, Iowa, in 1885.

Many writers, however still believed that a second Spaulding manuscript was the true source of the Book of Mormon, and labored indefatigably to prove it. Before examining their evidence, it should be noted that if, as seems most likely, there was only one Spaulding manuscript, there were certain similarities between it and the Book of Mormon which, though not sufficient to justify the thesis of common authorship, might have given rise to the conviction of Spaulding's ncighbors that one was a plagiarism of the other. Both were said to have come from out of the earth; both were stories of colonists sailing from the Old World to the New; both explained the earthworks and mounds common to western New York and Ohio as the result of savage wars. John Miller had spoken of "humorous passages" in Spaulding's work, which would certainly apply to the "Manuscript Story," but not to the utterly humorless Book of Mormon.

Other features, like the scriptural style, the expression "it came to pass," and the proper names, seem too definite to be questioned. But it should be remembered, as President Fair-child pointed out in his analysis of the problem, that "the Book of Mormon was fresh in their minds, and their recollections of the 'Manuscript Found' were very remote and dim. That under the pressure and suggestion of Hurlbut and Howe, they should put the ideas at hand in place of those remote and forgotten, and imagine that they remembered what they had recently read, would be only an ordinary example of the frailty of memory.

It is significant that five of Hurlbut's witnesses were careful to except the "religious" matter of the Book of Mormon as not contained in the Spaulding manuscript, and the others stated that "the historical parts" were derived from the Spaulding story. The narrative Hurlbut found had no religious matter whatever, but the Book of Mormon was permeated with religious ideas. It was first and foremost a religious book. The theology could not have been wrought by interpolation, since practically every historical event was motivated either by Satan or the Lord.

If, on the other hand, Hurlbut was right and there were actually two Spaulding manuscripts, one might reasonably expect stylistic similarities between the Book of Mormon and the extant manuscript, since the latter was full of unmistakable literary mannerisms of the kind that are more easily acquired than shed. Spaulding was heir to all the florid sentiment and grandiose rhetoric of the English Gothic romance. He used all the stereotyped patterns - villainy versus innocent maidenhood, thwarted love, and heroic valor - thickly encrusted with the tradition of the noble savage. The Book of Mormon had but one scant reference to a love affair, and its rhythmical, monotonous style bore no resemblance to the cheap cliches' and purple metaphors abounding in the Spaulding story.

After the publication of Howe's book, affidavits popped up here and there, usually solicited by preachers anxious to discredit Joseph Smith. The Mormons replied with books and pamphlets of their own, such as Parley P. Pratt's Mormonism Unveiled in 1838 and Benjamin Winchester's The Origin of the Spaulding Story in 1840. Winchester quoted another of Spaulding's neighbors, one Jackson, who had read Spaulding's manuscript and maintained "that there was no agreement between them; for, said he, Mr. Spaulding's manuscript was a very small work, in the form of a novel, saying not one word about the children of Israel, but professed to give an account of a race of people who originated from the Romans, which Mr. Spaulding said he had translated from a Latin parchment that he had found."

Spaulding's widow was visited again in 1839, when she was seventy years old, by a preacher named D. R. Austin, who published her signed statement in the Boston Recorder on April 19 of that year. She showed an astonishing enlargement of memory over her previous statement to Hurlbut, relating that the historical romance written by her husband had been given to his "acquaintance and friend" Robert Patterson, who was "very much pleased with it" and promised to print it. She stated also that Sidney Rigdon was connected with the press at this time and had every opportunity to copy the manuscript.

Rigdon's angry denial was published in the Boston Recorder on May 27, 1839: "If I were to say that I ever heard of the Rev. Solomon Spaulding and his hopeful wife, until Dr. P. Hurlbut wrote his lie about me, I should be a liar like unto themselves. Why was not the testimony of Mr. Patterson obtained to give force to this shameful tale of lies? The only reason is, that he was not a fit tool for them to work with. . .

Two Mormons, Jesse and John Haven, now interviewed Spaulding's widow, who denied having written the letter and stated that Austin had merely asked her a few questions, taken notes, and apparently written the letter himself. Both Spaulding's widow and daughter admitted in this interview that the manuscript they knew was an "idolatrous" not a religious story.

When Spaulding's daughter was seventy-four years old, she was interviewed, and stated that she remembered vividly hearing her father read his manuscript aloud, although she was only six years old at the time. "Some of the names that he mentioned while reading to these people I have never forgotten. They are as fresh to me as though I heard them yesterday. They were 'Mormon,' 'Maroni,' 'Lamenite,' 'Nephi.'" One is led to doubt the reliability of this memory, however, by another statement in this interview: "In that city [Pittsburgh] my father had an intimate friend named Patterson, and I frequently visited Mr. Patterson's library with him, and heard my father talk about books with him." Patterson, it will be remembered, denied knowing Spaulding at all.

Spaulding's daughter remembered seeing the manuscript in her father's trunk after his death, and stated that she had handled it and seen the names she had heard read to her at the age of six. She admitted, however, that she had not read it.

If the evidence pointing to the existence of a second Spaulding manuscript is dubious, the affidavits trying to prove that Rigdon stole it, or copied it, are all unconvincing and frequently preposterous.

First there is no evidence that Rigdon ever lived in Pittsburgh until 1822, when he became pastor of the First Baptist Church. Robert Patterson, Jr., son of the Pittsburgh printer, conducted an exhaustive research among the old settlers of the vicinity to try to establish the truth of the Spaulding theory. This was in 1882, sixty-six years after Spaulding's death. Many were familiar with the theory and believed it, he said, but few could give first-hand information. Rigdon's brother-in-law, not a Mormon, and Isaac King, an old neighbor, swore to him that Rigdon did not go to Pittsburgh before 1822. Mrs. Lambdin, widow of Patterson's partner, denied any knowledge of Rigdon, as did Robert P. DuBois, who had worked in the printing shop between 1818 and 1820.

One woman, who had worked as mail clerk in Patterson's office between 1811 and 1816, stated that she knew Rigdon and that he was an intimate friend of Lambdin's, but that this was clearly untrue is evidenced by the statement of Lambdin's widow that she had never heard of Rigdon. Another old settler claimed that Spaulding told him the manuscript had been spirited away and that Rigdon was suspect, but this statement is in conffict not only with the facts of Rigdon's life, but also with the accounts of Spaulding's wife and daughter, who made no mention of a lost manuscript and held that the "Manuscript Found" had been carefully preserved in the trunk.*

Patterson senior never left any statement that incriminated Rigdon, although the two men knew each other casually in Pittsburgh after 1822. In the 1870's and 1880's, when anti-Mormonism was most bitter in the United States, there was a great outcropping of affidavits such as those solicited by the younger Patterson. All were from citizens who vaguely remembered meeting Spaulding or Rigdon some fifty, sixty, or seventy years earlier. All are suspect because they corroborate only the details of the first handful of documents collected by Hurlbut and frequently use the very same language. Some are outright perjury.

James Jeifries wrote on January 20, 1884: "Forty years ago I was in business in St. Louis. . . . I knew Sidney Rigdon. He told me several times that there was in the office with which he was connected, in Ohio, a manuscript of the Reverend Spaulding, tracing the origin of the Indians from the lost tribes of Israel. The manuscript was in the office several years. He was familiar with it. Spaulding wanted it published, but had not the means to pay for the printing. He (Rigdon) said Joe (Joseph) Smith used to look over the manuscript and read it on Sundays. Rigdon said Smith took the manuscript and said, 'I'll print it,' and went off to Palmyra, New York." (Wyl: Mormon Portraits, p. 241) Forty years previous to 1884 would have been the year of Smith's assassination. Rigdon never lived in St. Louis, nor did Joseph Smith ever visit Ohio before 1831.

The tenuous chain of evidence accumulated to support the Spaulding-Rigdon theory breaks altogether when it tries to prove that Rigdon met Joseph Smith before 1830. There are ambiguous references to a "mysterious stranger" said to have visited the Smiths between 1827 and 1830. But only two men ever claimed that this was actually Rigdon. Abel Chase on May 2, 1879 (fifty-two years after the event) stated that in 1827

-- "as near as I can recollect" -- when he was a boy of twelve or thirteen, he saw a stranger at the Smith home who was said to be Rigdon. And Lorenzo Saunders on January 28, 1885 (fifty-eight years after the event) stated that he had seen him in the spring of 1827 and again in the summer of 1828.: Yet Saunders himself admitted his recollection came only after thirty years of puzzling over the matter and hunting for evidence. And it is highly probable that both men were actually remembering Rigdon's first appearance in Palmyra in late 1830. No other of Joseph's neighbors ever made any effort to connect the Ohio preacher with the Book of Mormon events. And an early historian of western New York, writing in 1851, said: "It is believed by all those best acquainted with the Smith family and most conversant with all the Gold Bible movements, that there is no foundation for the statement that the original manuscript was written by a Mr. Spaulding of Ohio."

Rigdon's life between 1826 and 1829 has been carefully documented from non-Mormon sources. It is clear from the following chronology that he was a busy and successful preacher and one of the leading figures in the Campbellite movement in Ohio. Until August 1830, when he broke with Alexander Campbell over the question of introducing communism into the Campbellite Church, he was orie of the four key men of that church. It cannot be held that Rigdon rewrote the Spaulding manuscript before 1827, since the anti-Masonry permeating the book clearly stemmed from the Morgan excitement beginning late in 1826.

ACTIVITIES OF RIGDON, NOVEMBER 2, 1826-NOVEMBER 14,1830
 

1826

November 2

Marriage of Smith and Giles (performed by Rigdon

December 13

Above marriage recorded.

1827

January

Held meeting at Mantua, Ohio.

February

Funeral of Hannah Tanner, Chester, Ohio.

March

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

April

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

 

(gap of possibly one month and half)

June 5

Marriage of Freeman and Waterman.

June 7

Above marriage recorded

June 15

baptized Thomas Clapp at Mentor, Ohio.

July 3

Marriage of Gray and Kerr

July 12

Above marriage recorded

August 10

Above marriage recorded.

August 23

Met with Mahoning Association, New Lisbon, Ohio.

 

(gap of one month and a half)

October 9

Marriage of Sherman and Methews.

October 20

At Minsiterial Council, Warren, Ohio.

November

Held meeting at New Lisbon, Ohio.

December 6

Marriage of Wait and Gunn

December 12

Above marriage recorded.

December 13

Marriage of Cottrell and Olds.

1828

January 8

Above marriage recorded

February 14

Marriage of Herrington and Corning.

March 31

Above marriage recorded.

March

Instructed theological class, Mentor, Ohio.

March

Visited Walter Scott at Warren, Ohio.

April

Conducted revival at Kirtland, Ohio.

May

Met Campbell at Shalersville, Ohio.

June

Baptized H. H. Clapp, Mentor, Ohio.

 

(gap of possibly two months)

August

At Association, Warren, Ohio.

September 7

Marriage of Dille and Kent,.

September 18

Marriage of Corning and Wilson

October 13

Above marriages recorded.

 

(gap of possibly two months and a hlf)

1829

January 1

Marriage of Churchill and Fosdick.

February 1

Marriage of Root and Tuttle.

February 12

Above marriages recorded.

March

Meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

April 12

Meeting at Kirtland, Ohio.

May

Baptized Lyman Wight.

 

(gap of possibly one month and a half)

July 1

Organized church at Perry, Ohio.

August

Baptized Mrs. Lyman Wight.

August 7

Met with church in Perry, Ohio.

August 13

Marriage of Strong and More.

September 14

Above marriage recorded.

September 14

Marriage of Atwater and Clapp.

September

Held meeting at Mentor, Ohio.

October 1

Marriage of Roberts and bates.

October 7

Last two marriages recorded.

October

At Perry, Ohio.

November

Held Meeting at Wite Hill, Ohio.

December 31

Marriage of Chandler and Johnson.

1830

January 12

Above marriage recorded.

 

(gap of possible two months)

March

At Mentor, Ohio.

 

(gap of two months)

June

At Mentor, Ohio.

July

Held meeting at Pleasant Valley, Ohio.

August

Met Campbell at Austintown, Ohio.

 

(gap of two and one half months)

November 4

Marriage of Wood and Cleaveland.

November 11

Above marriage recorded.

November 14

Rigdon baptized by Oliver Cowdery.

The above chronology is a rearrangement of one compiled by the Reorganized Church and appearing in the Journal of History, Vol. III, pp. 16-20, with additional information from Hayden: Early History of the Disciples in the Western Reserve.

Alexander Campbell, who knew Rigdon intimately, described his conversion to Mormonism with great regret in the Millennial Harbinger, attributing it to his nervous spasms and swoonings and to his passionate belief in the imminent gathering of Israel. But of the authorship of the Book of Mormon he wrote bluntly: "It is as certainly Smith's fabrication as Satan is the father of lies or darkness is the offspring of night."

Rigdon denied the Spaulding story throughout his life. When his son John questioned him shortly before his death, he replied: "My son, I can swear before high heaven that what I have told you about the origin of that book is true. Your mother and sister, Mrs. Athalia Robinson, were present when that book was handed to me in Mentor, Ohio, and all I ever knew about the origin of that book was that Parley P. Pratt, Oliver Cowdery, Joseph Smith and the witnesses who claimed they saw the plates have told me, and in all my intimacy with Joseph Smith he never told me but one story, and that was that he found it engraved upon gold plates in a hill near Palmyra, New York, and that an angel had appeared to him and directed him where to find it. . . ."

Thanks nowandlater...you saved me the trouble...

Mike,

I went to the site you mentioned in your last post. Here is a thread from it:

We still continued the work of translation, when, in the ensuing month (May, 1829), we on a certain day went into the woods to pray and inquire of the Lord respecting abaptism for the bremission of sins, that we found mentioned in the translation of the plates. While we were thus employed, praying and calling upon the Lord, a messenger from heaven descended in a ccloud of light, and having laid his dhands upon us, he eordained us, saying:
69 Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the aPriesthood of bAaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of cbaptism by immersion for the remission of sins; and this shall never be taken again from the earth until the sons of dLevi do offer again an offering unto the Lord in erighteousness.
70 He said this Aaronic Priesthood had not the power of laying on hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, but that this should be conferred on us hereafter; and he commanded us to go and be baptized, and gave us directions that I should baptize Oliver Cowdery, and that afterwards he should baptize me.
71 Accordingly we went and were baptized. I abaptized him first, and afterwards he baptized me—after which I laid my hands upon his head and ordained him to the Aaronic Priesthood, and afterwards he laid his hands on me and ordained me to the same Priesthood—for so we were commanded.*
72 The amessenger who visited us on this occasion and conferred this Priesthood upon us, said that his name was John, the same that is called bJohn the Baptist in the New Testament, and that he acted under the direction of cPeter, James and John, who held the keys of the Priesthood of Melchizedek, which Priesthood, he said, would in due time be conferred on us, and that I should be called the first dElder of the Church, and he (Oliver Cowdery) the second. It was on the fifteenth day of May, 1829, that we were ordained under the hand of this messenger, and baptized.
73 Immediately on our coming up out of the water after we had been baptized, we experienced great and glorious blessings from our Heavenly Father. No sooner had I baptized Oliver Cowdery, than the Holy Ghost fell upon him, and he stood up and aprophesied many things which should shortly come to pass. And again, so soon as I had been baptized by him, I also had the spirit of prophecy, when, standing up, I prophesied concerning the rise of this Church, and many other things connected with the Church, and this generation of the children of men. We were filled with the Holy Ghost, and rejoiced in the God of our salvation.
--------------------

A couple of questions:

1) Peter, James, and John never held the 'keys' to the Melchizedek priesthood. God the Father calls Jesus the Son "Thou are a priest in the order of Melchizedek." As I pointed out yesterday, this priestly order had 2 members: Melchizedek and Jesus. How could Peter, James, and John then hold and transfer that authority, authority they never possessed themselves? None of the 3 is ever mentioned next to the name Melchizedek in all of the Scriptures. Look it up for yourself.

2) Is it or is it not against the ordinances of the Mormon church for an unbaptized person to baptize another person? If it is against the ordinances, then Smith's baptism of Cowdery is invalid. Cowdery, thus having an invalid baptism, could not then baptize Smith. Both baptisms would be invalid, since by Mormon teaching neither one had the 'authority' to baptize the other. That 'authority', according to the Mormon missionaries i have talked to, can only be conferred on persons who have ALREADY been baptized. Your citing does nothing to authenticate Smith's calling, since the above is his own account of what happened.

3) It is also curious that, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, when an angel is sent to proclaim a message and is named that name is always Gabriel, the supreme messenger. Why would God use Gabriel to appear to Zacharias and Mary proclaiming the coming of His salvation, and then use someone else for a 'restoration' of that glory? God is consistent in His dealings with men throughout history, so this does not make sense to me. Yes, God can do whatever He wants to do however He wants to do it. I am not debating that point. However, He has remained eternally consistent and faithful in how He has interacted with man, so a deviation here throws up a red flag as to whether this really happened at all, or at least as to whether the angel 'Moroni' is of heavenly origin.

Mike,

Thanks for you comments. You still did not answer my question. Are Joseph and Oliver's baptisms valid, according to the sequence of events Smith catalogues? I know that you have to answer, yes of course they are, because if you don't then all of their testimony is invalidated.

But I believe if you look at the ordinances of the LDS church, if I gave that scenario to elders or the council or the president of the church (omitting the names so they wouldn't know i was speaking about Cowdery and Smith) I would bet my bottom dollar that they would say that an unbaptized person CANNOT baptize another person, or confer any authority on them.

And why would that authority be given by John the Baptist? He was not an apostle of Christ, but was a prophet in the manner of Elijah. Too many things about that account do not ring true. I would say you put faith in Joseph Smith to your peril.

Finally, how does Jesus fulfilling the Law of Moses point to the fact that God changes the way He deals with people down through the ages? Jesus said "do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."

How did Jesus fulfill the Law? Look at the original covenant. It had a preamble (I am the Lord thy God), identified the parties, had stipulations (Ten Commandments, the other laws and statutes), blessings and curses (If you obey, you will be blessed; if you disobey, you will be cursed), and was sealed with a blood oath (the sacrifice of bulls and goats). This Law was perfect and good, but no one could follow it because you would have to be perfect to do it. Therefore, Israel transgressed, as do we all, and fell under the curse of the Law. Jesus lived a sinless life to win the blessings of the old covenant, and he died as the perfect sacrificial lamb to remove from us the curses of the Law. Thus, by his life and death he fulfilled the Mosaic covenant in it's entirety. And by fulfilling Old Testament Messianic prophecies, he fulfilled the Prophets.

Paul puts it this way in Ephesians 2:
One in Christ
11Therefore, remember that formerly you who are Gentiles by birth and called "uncircumcised" by those who call themselves "the circumcision" (that done in the body by the hands of men)— 12remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world. 13But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ.
14For he himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, 16and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God's people and members of God's household, 20built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone.

-------------------

We have been released from the Law by God's power through the shedding of Jesus' blood. Paul says in Romans 7:

1Do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to men who know the law—that the law has authority over a man only as long as he lives? 2For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. 3So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress, even though she marries another man.
4So, my brothers, you also died to the law through the body of Christ, that you might belong to another, to him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit to God. 5For when we were controlled by the sinful nature,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in our bodies, so that we bore fruit for death. 6But now, by dying to what once bound us, we have been released from the law so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit, and not in the old way of the written code.
---------------------

And Paul finishes that logic in Colossians 2:

13When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature,[a] God made you[b] alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.[c]
--------------------

You see, Mike, the Old Testament is not gone, it is not forgotten, but we are heirs of the New Covenant, a much better and richer covenant than those under the Law. Christ has replaced the Law on stone tablets with the Holy Spirit in our hearts. We are thus 'circumsised' or set apart by the indwelling of that Holy Spirit.

After Christ's resurrection, some Jewish Christians went around telling new converts that they were damned if they did not get circumsised. Paul was appalled at this, and put the kabosh on that practice. "They have been circumsised in their hearts" was his answer. You see, anyone who wants us to go back to old practices has not really grasped the totality of what Christ accomplished on the cross.

I would say this; anyone who insists that we have to go back to practices of the Aaronic priesthood is just like those early Jewish believers who insisted on circumsion. They are both things that were demanded under the old covenant (circumsion was the blood oath, the outward physical sign of the Abrahamic covenant, and the priestly sacrifices were stipulations of the Mosaic covenant), but neither one is necessary under the new. To preach that either circumsion or adhering to the Aaronic priesthood is dishonest and confuses the issue for new believers.

If you claim this priesthood authority for yourself, can you trace your geneology back to Aaron? I would highly doubt that you could. The Bible carried solemn warnings for people who tried to take on the mantle of Aaron in the OT; no such warnings are given in the NT, because the priesthood was fulfilled and satisfied by the death of Christ. You can cling to that authority if you want, but it is neither here on the earth any more or necessary. Jesus is the one who intercedes for us (read I John 2:1 - "My dear children, I write this to you so that you will not sin. But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to the Father in our defense—Jesus Christ, the Righteous One. He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world."), acknowledges us before the Father and the holy angels, and through His life, death, and resurrection our sins were forgiven, and our hope is now for eternal life with Him.

You will disagree with this, I know, but remember that it was the Pharisees who turned legalism into an art form, and Jesus took them to task because their religion was external and not internal. Insisting on things like priestly authority rob the cross of some of its power. Grace and truth beget good works and obedience, not the other way around.

RD,

Good comments, but as you can see in my earlier post, I addressed the 'fulfilled' versus 'abolished' question.

Who laid their hands on John the Baptist, to give him the Aaronic priesthood? Nobody that I know in Scripture. He was set apart while still in the womb that he would be great in the sight of the Lord. However, from what we know of him he was not a direct descendent of Aaron, and he was not called to be a priest. Instead, he was called in the manner of Elijah "as one whose voice calls in the wilderness, make straight your paths before the Lord!" He had no Aaronic priesthood, so he certainly would not have been the one to come back and bestow it on someone else.

Again, the Aaronic priesthood was brought to its fulfillment by the death of Christ. We know longer need this priesthood, and that is made clear in the Scriptures. Harking back to it is, like I said before, telling new converts they must be circumsised to be truly saved. It is an unnecessary and burdensome construct.

Likewise, Paul was called to be an apostle, not a priest. He was not of the higher priesthood of Melchizedek, because there are only two people mentioned in Scripture who are of that order, and Paul, and none of the other apostles for that matter, are not of that order.

Chief,

I guess most have tired of this blog and moved on since we seem to have hit an impasse.

Thanks for your thoughts...you seem genuinely fulfilled with your bygone version of orthodox Christianity...rock on!

Question?

Can Mormonism explain why there is suffering and tragedy in the world?

Joseph asked, "Can Mormonism explain why there is suffering and tragedy in the world?"

Since you asked for "Mormonism" to explain this...the following was written "to Mormons", and clearly addresses your question...

"We live in a world of constant change. Changes are often packaged as improvements, with the word "new" used as a positive label, often in contrast to the truth. In this country we have encountered terms such as the New Deal, the New Morality, the New Covenant, and the New World Order, each describing some major change. Some politicians, once elected, claim that their mandate is change, almost as if change by itself were always desirable. According to prophecies for these latter days, we know that many more changes will take place around us, though many of these will not be pleasant.

In fact, unless change is carefully organized and directed, it tends to be negative, leading to degradation and disorder. This observation is related to a fundamental principle of science known as the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Thermodynamics refers to the interaction of mass and energy and is an important field for scientists and engineers. The numerous concepts and equations of thermodynamics are ultimately based on a few grand laws of nature.

The First Law of Thermodynamics states that energy (along with mass) is conserved. You can change its form, but energy cannot be created out of nothing nor can it disappear. Some of the radiation energy of sunlight captured long ago by plants is now available to us as chemical energy in the form of gasoline. When we burn it in our cars, some of that energy is converted to mechanical energy as the car moves, and some is converted to thermal energy (heat) or other forms of chemical energy. If we carefully account for all the energy forms, we see that none is created or destroyed, it all goes somewhere. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics, and all other principles and equations used in science and engineering must comply with it. This principle, which seems fairly obvious to us today, was rejected by the scientific community when first introduced in the mid 1800s. It took a lot of evidence to finally convince the learned authorities, but now we accept this principle as truth, until someone can refute it or come up with a counterexample.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics puts limits on what can be done as energy is applied or as it is transformed from one form to another. In layman's terms, the Second Law states that things tend to get worse - to go from order to disorder - if left alone. The only way for something to become more ordered is if external energy is applied properly. For example, a car will tend to fall apart unless you maintain it - and car maintenance becomes the external work that must be applied to reverse the natural decay that would otherwise occur. A human body will quit working unless you constantly supply external energy in the form of food. Put a two-year old in a room, come back in a few hours, and you will see a substantial increase in disorder (technically speaking, the entropy of the room will have increased). To prevent or reverse such disorder, external energy is required, usually in the form of a frustrated mother.

The Second Law is really the governing principle of mortality. We can't expect natural changes to be ones that we like. Things tend to decay and degenerate if left to themselves. Here in mortality, we can expect to become ill, to age, to suffer changes in the form of afflictions and tribulations, and to eventually die. Change is guaranteed in mortality, and not all of the changes are pleasant.

Many Saints make the mistake of thinking that the righteous will always be blessed in temporal matters - that they will be or at least ought to be blessed so as to be financially independent, healthy, delivered from all tragedy, and spared from IRS audits.

We know that the Lord blesses and prospers groups that are righteous, but we know that there are many ways in which the righteous are blessed - ways which typically do not show up in your checking account. Indeed, much of the scriptures deals with the trials and afflictions that are given to the righteous. We learn that we will certainly be blessed if we keep our covenants, but we may not escape bitter trials in this mortal existence. Viewed from a temporal perspective, the scriptures provide many striking contrasts that some might even call inconsistencies. These are contrasts between the blessings that the Lord gives the righteous and the afflictions that He gives the righteous.

In the Old Testament, we read of the rich blessings the Lord gave to Joseph, who rose to the second highest position in Egypt and was given wealth and power beyond his wildest dreams. He was temporally blessed, but we also read of Joseph cast out by his brothers, sold into slavery, and unjustly thrown into prison. Also in the Old Testament, we read of the divine protection given to Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego as they were cast into the fire for their commitment to God. Although the fire was so hot that several of the guards who tossed them in themselves died from the heat, the three righteous men were spared. Indeed, the evil king who sought their lives saw a fourth Being with them in the fire, one like the Son of Man. They were unharmed, not even singed in the least. What an incredible blessing! Yet in the Book of Mormon we read of righteous Abinadi burned at the stake, and of dozens of believing women and children cast into a flaming pit by the wicked inhabitants of the city of Ammonihah. These women and children were not spared.

We read of glorious victories against enemies, such as that of Gideon and only three hundred men against a huge army. Yet in this dispensation, hundreds of Saints were massacred by mobs, and the prophet Joseph [LDS Prophet] himself was killed. We read of the golden age of prosperity and righteousness that followed the visit of Christ to the Americas [Book of Mormon], yet in our day thousands of Latter-day Saints struggle in the search for employment.

The ultimate example of all is the Savior himself, the only perfectly righteous man ever, who suffered more intensely than any other human being ever suffered.

What are the promises made to us in mortality? Will we be spared cancer, unemployment, theft, or IRS audits? Perhaps - but remember, this is the world, a place of wickedness, a time of probation, a crucible for separating the gold from the sand. This is a battlefield with real casualties - agony and death, both spiritual and physical. The promise to us is that we can have peace in this life - even in the midst of war and other unpleasant changes, the peace that the Gospel brings, not the peace that the world gives - and most importantly, that we can have eternal life, eternal joy in the next life (D&C 59:23).

We can expect trials as a prelude to the glory and blessings that God yearns to gives us. In D&C 58:3-4, we read:

3. Ye cannot behold with your natural eyes, for the present time, the design of your God concerning those things which shall come hereafter, and the glory which shall follow after much tribulation. 4. For after much tribulation come the blessings. Wherefore the day cometh that ye shall be crowned with much glory; the hour is not yet, but is nigh at hand.

We must remember that no matter what we are asked to go through, it does not mean that God has ceased loving us, that he has changed in any way in his love for us. Paul makes this point in Romans 8: 35-39:

35. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? [shall] tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
36. As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter.
37. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us.
38. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39. Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God does not change in his love for us. His constancy - part of His eternal nature - is a key characteristic, as we read in Mormon 9: 9-13:

9. For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?
10. And now if ye have imagined up unto yourselves a god who doth vary, and in whom there is shadow of changing, then have ye imagined up unto yourselves a god who is not God of miracles.
11. But behold, I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are.
12. Behold he created Adam, and by Adam came the fall of man. And because of the fall of man came Jesus Christ, even the Father and the Son; and because of Jesus Christ came the redemption of man.
13. And because of the redemption of man, which came by Jesus Christ, they are brought back into the presence of the Lord; yea, this is wherein all men are redeemed, because the death of Christ bringeth to pass the resurrection, which bringeth to pass a redemption from an endless sleep, from which sleep all men shall be awakened by the power of God when the trump shall sound; and they shall come forth, both small and great, and all shall stand before his bar, being redeemed and loosed from this eternal band of death, which death is a temporal death.

The above passage is worthy of study from a thermodynamic perspective. It links God's constancy to His conquest of our physical and spiritual death (death being the ultimate result of entropy).

The main point for now, though, is that when afflictions come, the question is not whether God has changed, but whether we will change. Can we remain constant in our commitment to the Gospel? This is the real challenge: how to remain constant in the midst of change.

Satan tries to exploit the Second Law of Thermodynamics to let change around us bring change in us- degenerative, negative, "natural" change, change such as a weakening of testimony, a loss of faith, and yielding to sin. There are many ways in which he exploits external change for his negative purposes. For example, changes in the Church itself such as changes in ward boundaries, changes in leadership, changes in policies, changes in meeting times - can all be used to tempt us to change in our commitment to the Gospel. Do we criticize our leaders for a change we do not like? Do we quit coming when it is less convenient?

External change in the form of persecution or peer pressure can be a powerful tool to induce some to give up the Gospel to remove pressure from the world or to get the praise of the world. Tragedy and suffering can be exploited to make us doubt God and his love or to question his existence. This happened to Ted Turner, a famous media magnate in Atlanta, where we were living a couple months ago. Ted Turner's sister had been a devout Christian, but she died of cancer at an early age. His death was very troubling to Mr. Turner, and he decided that a loving God could not possibly have allowed her death, so God must not exist. (This argument can be restated: God does not do things the way I think they should be done, therefore He must not exist.) Suffering is a two-edged sword in the changes it promotes, as we read in Alma 62: 41:

But behold, because of the exceedingly great length of the war between the Nephites and the Lamanites many had become hardened, because of the exceedingly great length of the war; and many were softened because of their afflictions, insomuch that they did humble themselves before God, even in the depth of humility.

Suffering humbles some, bringing them closer to God, while others are hardened by it. Satan's goal is to harden as many as possible.

Perhaps Satan's most clever and powerful tool for negative change is money. He teaches us that we can have anything in this world for money - all we have to do is make a slight change in our hearts by making money our god rather than our Heavenly Father. This tool is so powerful that it - or the love of it - is called the root of all evil (1 Tim. 6:10). Shakespeare showed money as a powerful agent for negative change in the play Timon of Athens. Timon was a wealthy and generous Greek who freely gave of his substance to those around him. Soon he had given it all away, whereupon his former friends and relatives ignored him and refused to even recognize him. As an outcast, he left the city to survive by digging up roots in the countryside. One day, while digging, he came upon a treasure with much gold. When he saw the wealth he had found, he wanted to get rid of it, for he knew how dangerous it could be. Timon says that this money will "make black white, foul fair, wring right, base noble, coward valiant....This yellow slave will knit and break religion, bless the accursed, place thieves and give them title, knee, and approbation with Senators on the bench."

Turning black to white, good to evil is exactly what money does. One example is the tobacco industry, which helps kill over 400,000 thousand Americans every year for the sake of money. This industry goes to enormous lengths to deny the evil it causes and to shroud itself with respectability. The same with the alcohol industry. The abortion industry is a related example. The slaughter of the unborn brings tremendous profits to the doctors, clinics, and organizations that support it. These profits buy great influence and cause great corruption of values, turning good and evil upside down. Abortion is now hailed as a right, as a victory for the progress of women, when in truth it is a despicable holocaust that slays 1.5 million innocent beings in our nation every year.

In the midst of Satan's onslaught, in the midst of constant change that threatens to change our hearts, how do we remain constant and stay on course? The Second Law of Thermodynamics provides some insight, an analogy at least. The Second Law states that things degenerate or become less ordered on their own unless an external source of energy is applied to reverse the natural disorder. For example, to keep a house clean, you must clean it. To keep a car running, you must add gas and do maintenance work. With respect to our testimonies and our eternal souls, the external energy needed comes from God. A major channel for this energy is the priesthood, directed through leaders whom God calls and directs. This is how God overcomes negative change in the Church and keeps this organization on course.

During World War II, communication was cut off between Church headquarters and several countries such as Germany. After the war, Church leaders found that the local branches in Germany and other places had undergone significant transformations. Robes were worn, candles were lit, and other practices from non-LDS churches were adopted. Without constant direction through apostles and prophets, apostasy can occur with great speed. The word of the Lord, through his chosen leaders, resists all external change. Indeed, as we read in D&C 1: 38, though the heavens and the earth may pass away - a most dramatic change - his word will not pass away, "but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the voice of my servants, it is the same."

In addition to following the word of God, both through living prophets and as found in the scriptures - which we should study daily to stay on course - we also tap into God's energy through prayer and through the guidance of the Holy Ghost as we live worthy for that companionship.

I must also mention one specific commandment, that of tithing, for it is a powerful defense against Satan's most clever tool for change, money. Through paying tithing, we learn to set our priorities properly,making God first rather than the things of the world. We learn to focus on that which is eternal and unchanging rather than on treasures which may perish or change daily (stocks, for example).

The divine energy we need to resist the decay that occurs in the world ultimately is derived from that most marvelous eternal powerhouse, the Atonement of Christ. The Atonement of Christ is God's answer to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Through the miracle of His atonement, Christ offers us the power to reverse death, to remove sin and all manner of degeneration, to heal spiritual wounds and change our hearts for good, to make all that is bad and painful become good, to cause us to become new creatures, born again, immortal, eternal. His way of life, which he has made available to all who will repent and follow Him - is eternal life, endless life, unchanging, perfect life - in marvelous violation of mortality's Second Law. He offers more than just the energy or the external help we need to avoid degeneration - he offers us limitless energy for positive change, energy that can exalt us and help us become like him. This is what Alma the Younger spoke of after he experienced the miraculous power of the Atonement in his life (Mosiah 27: 24-26):

24. For, said he, I have repented of my sins, and have been redeemed of the Lord; behold I am born of the Spirit.
25. And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;
26. And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

It is what King Benjamin spoke of in Mosiah 5: 7-9:

7. And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.
8. And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.
9. And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

It is what Paul spoke of in Philippians 3:20-21

20. For our conversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ:
21. Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.

It is the powerful yet calming power that hundreds of Lamanites experienced in the prison where Nephi and Lehi were imprisoned around 30 B.C., as we read in Helaman 5: 42-48.

It is impossible to think of the Atonement of Christ without thinking of his pure love, his unchanging charity, and a major part of following Christ and receiving the blessings of the Atonement is seeking to obtain this Christlike quality of charity. Indeed, charity - the pure love of Christ - is a great key to obtaining constancy amidst change. In Moroni 7:45-48, that beautiful discourse by Mormon on charity, we read that everything around us will ultimately fail, just as the Second Law predicts - but charity never fails but endures forever. We are exhorted to pray to the Father with all the energy of our heart that we might receive this divine energy - charity -from God, which will make us true sons of Jesus Christ, that when He appears, we will be like Him - free from the changes of mortality, purified, eternal. "Wherefore cleave unto charity, which is the greatest of all ... and it endureth forever."

We are sons and daughters of God in this painful crucible of mortality, an existence of guaranteed changes, many of them difficulty, an existence dominated by the constraints of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. May we resist the external forces and temptations that might lead us to change for the worse, and may we remain constant in our testimonies as we follow the prophets and seek the energizing companionship of the Spirit through obedience, scripture study and prayer. May we turn our hearts to Christ, seeking the endless power of his love, of his Atonement, which frees us from sins and gives us power to be born again, to rise again, and to live with him in the unimaginable joy of eternal life. May we seek after charity with all our hearts, that we may remain constant in the midst of change, cleaving to charity as the foundation for all we do. In the name of Jesus Christ, Amen." Quoted from JeffLindsey.com

The Book of Mormon

Another Testament of Jesus Christ." Such is the modern subtitle of The Book of Mormon, a book first published in 1830 but purporting to be a translation of an ancient Scripture penned in the Western Hemisphere between 600 B.C. and A.D. 421. The main story line of the Book of Mormon tells of a migration of an Israelite family from Jerusalem shortly before the Babylonian Exile to a land across the ocean (somewhere in the Americas), and of the history of two peoples, the Nephites and the Lamanites, descended from that family. The most famous part of the Book of Mormon story is of the appearance of Jesus Christ after His resurrection to preach to the Nephites.

The Book of Mormon was produced by Joseph Smith, who claimed to have been led by an angel to the spot where the golden plates on which the Book of Mormon had been written were buried. It is considered Scripture and one of the four standard works (along with the Bible, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price) of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon church. It is also accepted as Scripture by the Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints and dozens of other LDS splinter sects. Some ten million people worldwide accept the Book of Mormon as Scripture — the only modern book to gain such acceptance.

Is the Book of Mormon the word of God, an ancient collection of Scriptures restored to the world through Joseph Smith? Or is it a 19th-century fiction created to lead people away from the God of the Bible? I will try to show that even the most sophisticated and seemingly convincing arguments offered by Mormons today in defense of the Book of Mormon are unsound. Such arguments simply are unable to overcome some very easy-to-understand objections to regarding it as an authentic ancient text or placing one’s faith in it as God’s word.

The critical question to be answered about the Book of Mormon is whether it is true. There are several levels on which this question can be entertained.

I. The Book of Mormon Lacks Inerrancy

First, we can ask whether the Book of Mormon is inerrant. That is, we can ask if it is completely free of historical, scientific, and other factual errors. The answer to this question is simply No. Most Mormons will readily admit that the Book of Mormon is not inerrant. The preface to the Book of Mormon states, "And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of men...." This is, of course, a truism — one is tempted to say, "No kidding!" — but its point is that the Book of Mormon should be accepted as divinely inspired despite the presence of human error: "...wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ." This means for Mormons that the Book of Mormon cannot be rejected wholesale on the basis of minor discrepancies or inaccuracies. From a Mormon perspective, the Book of Mormon can have such mistakes and still be what it claims to be, an ancient collection of scriptural writings translated for the modern world by the prophet Joseph Smith.

II. The Book of Mormon Lacks Inspiration

The second way in which we can put the question of truth is to ask if the Book of Mormon is inspired by God. Now, from an evangelical perspective — and, I would add, from a biblical point of view — the fact that the Book of Mormon is errant is enough to disqualify it immediately as inspired. If "all Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Tim. 3:16), then Scripture cannot err, since God cannot breathe or speak error. If, as Jesus Himself taught, not the smallest letter or part of a letter will pass away from the OT until it has all been fulfilled (Matt. 5:18), then the OT at least must be without error. And if the OT is inerrant, any future Scripture will have to meet that standard of truth.

A. The Mormon Test

The very last chapter of the Book of Mormon contains its own suggested test for confirming its inspiration. The reader is encouraged to "ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost" (Moroni 10:4). Mormons routinely cite this passage and urge prospective converts to read the Book of Mormon and ask God if it is true. They "bear their testimony" to having done so themselves and knowing that the Book of Mormon is true.

There are some serious objections to this approach to validating the inspiration of the Book of Mormon. First of all, some people have followed this prescription of Moroni 10:4 and concluded that the Book of Mormon is not true. That is, they have read the Book of Mormon, asking God to show them whether it is true or not, and have not received a testimony of its truth but have instead become convinced that it is false. All a Mormon can really say to such persons is that they must not have prayed "with a sincere heart" or "real intent." But on what basis can this judgment be made? Only on the assumption that the Book of Mormon is true — that is, only by assuming the very thing in question.

Second, the Moroni 10:4 prescription is not supported by the Bible and in fact contradicts the Bible. Sometimes Mormons cite James 1:5 in support. However, James 1:5 is speaking about believers asking God for wisdom to overcome temptation (James 1:2-18), not about unbelievers asking God to reveal to them whether a particular book is Scripture. The Bible tells us to apply objective tests to alleged revelations (Deut. 13:1-5; Matt. 7:15-23; 1 John 4:1-6), not to seek a purely subjective revelation of the truth of a written revelation.

B. The Biblical Tests

C. The Closed-Canon Test

This leads us to ask what biblical tests can be applied to the question of the inspiration of the Book of Mormon. We must first recognize that one of the most commonly used arguments against the inspiration of the Book of Mormon, while based on a true premise, is probably invalid. It is often urged that the Book of Mormon cannot be Scripture because the canon of Scripture was closed upon the death of the apostles. While I do believe that the canon was closed then and that only the Old and New Testaments can constitute Scripture until Christ returns, this belief is notoriously difficult to prove by simply citing biblical proof texts. But the more telling point here is that about 96 per cent of the Book of Mormon is alleged to have been written prior to the end of the first century A.D. The closed-canon test, then, is probably unhelpful in this case, especially from a Mormon perspective.

I do think, however, that the closed-canon argument can be reconstructed to show a serious problem with the LDS doctrine of continuing revelation. In the LDS view, the lack of continuing revelation after the passing of the first-century apostles is evidence of an apostasy. They claim that the canon should never have been regarded as closed. But this claim ignores a crucial aspect of the LDS doctrine of the apostasy. Mormons believe that God restored the church in the nineteenth century through Joseph Smith. What was to prevent him from restoring the church in the second century, or in the third? Nothing, so far as I can see. If the Mormons are right, God could have restored the church and reopened the canon at any time. Since he did not, it seems reasonable to conclude that for about eighteen centuries the canon of Scripture was de facto closed, and that God approved of that situation.

For all their criticism of the concept of a closed canon, the Mormons actually operate with several closed canons and one or two open canons. Mormons have not added anything to the canons of the Old Testament or the New Testament. Nor have they added anything to the canon of the Book of Mormon since Smith originally published it. These canons appear to be permanently closed, even in LDS thought and practice. Nor have they added anything to Pearl of Great Price since it was first published, although I suppose that in theory they might choose to add new books to it in the future. They have added just a little to Doctrine & Covenants since Smith died, and have added virtually nothing to it for over a century.

The question, then, does not seem to be the closure of the canon, but the unity of the canon. For orthodox Christians, the OT and NT have always functioned as two parts of one complete canon of Scripture, used by one people of God. Never, from our perspective, has a major canon or portion of the canon been created for and used by a people completely cut off from the mainstream of God’s people in the earth. But this is precisely what the Book of Mormon purports to be.

D. The Coherency Tests

Although the close-canon test may be inconclusive when applied to the Book of Mormon, there are a number of other biblical tests that can be applied. These tests may be grouped together in general and labeled the coherency test: does the Book of Mormon agree with the Bible? Clearly, in some very important matters, it does not.

1. The Gospel Test

An obvious and crucial test of coherency that may be applied is to ask whether the Book of Mormon presents the same gospel as the New Testament. We are explicitly told to apply such a test by the apostle Paul (Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Cor. 11:4).

Unfortunately, the Book of Mormon is all too clear on this score. It flatly asserts that the Bible as we have it was corrupted by the Gentiles, who "have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious… that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord," so that the gospel had to be restored through the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 13:26-27, cf. 13:20-42). This statement forces the issue. The gospel that we have received, that we find in the New Testament, is supposedly one that has been stripped and perverted. If this is so, then the New Testament is unreliable and we must accept the gospel of the Book of Mormon as expounded by the latter-day restored church. On the other hand, if we assume that the New Testament contains the whole gospel of salvation and that any new or different gospel is to be rejected, then the Book of Mormon cannot be accepted as inspired.

Note that we do not need to argue with a Mormon about what the true gospel is or is not. It is enough that the Book of Mormon itself says that traditional Christianity and Mormonism have two different and incompatible versions of the gospel of Christ. So, whatever the Mormon gospel, it cannot be the same gospel as we find in the Bible. If it were, Mormonism would have no reason to exist.

2. The God Test

Another key test set forth in Scripture is that any revelation from God must reveal the same God as the one already revealed to us. Even anyone performing miracles or making successful predictions must be rejected if he does so in the name of a different god (Deut. 13:1-5).

The Book of Mormon, of course, does not overtly present a different God than that of the Bible. It does not claim to reveal Zeus or Baal or even Allah. However, the conception of God does differ somewhat from that of the Bible. The New Testament reveals the one God (1 Cor. 8:4-6; James 2:19; etc.) to exist eternally in three persons, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19; John 1:1-18; John 14-16; 2 Peter 1:1; etc.). In the New Testament the Father and the Son are distinct persons (e.g., John 8:16-18; 14:23; Rom. 1:7; 2 John 3). The Book of Mormon, by contrast, presents the Father and the Son as two modes of the one person of God — the Father as God in heaven, and the Son as God manifested on the earth (e.g., Mosiah 15:1-4). In theological language, the Bible view of God is trinitarian, while that of the Book of Mormon is monarchian.

If the Book of Mormon doctrine of God differs somewhat from the biblical doctrine, it is radically different from what since about 1916 has been the standard Mormon doctrine of God. In this standard doctrine the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three Gods; God the Father has not always been God but attained Godhood by a process of exaltation; the Father and Son each have separate bodies of flesh and bones; and human beings can attain Godhood by following the same path to exaltation as that of the Father. The Book of Mormon doctrine of God is so different from current Mormon church doctrine that we may legitimately conclude that at least one of these two sources of doctrine — the Book of Mormon or the Mormon church — misrepresents God and teaches blatant falsehood about God. Either way, the Book of Mormon fails to past the God test.

E. The Authenticity Test

Besides the consistency test, there is another, even more basic test that can be applied. Call it the authenticity test: Is the Book of Mormon authentic? That is, is it essentially what it purports to be, and is it therefore basically reliable? Jesus, speaking in the Bible, indicated that such a test is appropriate when he said, "I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of heavenly things?" (John 3:12). In other words, a source that cannot be trusted in mundane matters cannot be trusted in spiritual, transcendent matters. This leads us to the final level on which the question of truth can be raised.

III. The Book of Mormon Lacks Integrity

A. The Validity of This Test

The third level on which the question of the truth of the Book of Mormon can be asked has to do with the integrity of the work. The issue on this level is neither its factual inerrancy nor its divine inspiration. Rather, the issue is whether the work is at all what it claims to be.

Let us imagine two scenarios. In the first, the Book of Mormon is in fact a translation from golden plates of an ancient collection of writings penned by Nephite prophets in the Americas between 600 B.C. and A.D. 421. Let us further suppose that they do indeed belong to the genre of historical records, as they generally purport, and that in the main the records are to be treated as serious efforts to record actual events. In this case the Book of Mormon may be pronounced authentic and possessing documentary integrity. It would not follow necessarily that the documents are inspired, but they might be — were it not for its failure to past tests of inspiration as discussed previously.

In the second scenario, the Book of Mormon is in fact a work of fiction originating from Joseph Smith (with or without plagiarizing of other writings). It owes nothing to ancient Nephite prophets (whether or not transatlantic voyages from the Middle East to the Americas ever occurred). Its existence begins in the early nineteenth century. Yet Joseph Smith and his early followers unanimously claimed that the Book of Mormon was an ancient work as imagined in the first scenario. In this case the Book of Mormon must be judged inauthentic and lacking integrity. It would then follow necessarily that the Book of Mormon is not inspired, even if we did not have the other tests for inspiration discussed earlier. Again, this is because a source that lacks integrity in the mundane matter of being what it claims to be certainly cannot be trusted to reveal truth from God.

The evidence for the inauthenticity of the Book of Mormon is actually quite overwhelming, as we shall try to make clear.

B. Sources of the Book of Mormon

1. Could Joseph Smith Have Produced the Book Himself?

The standard approach of Mormons in defending the authenticity of the Book of Mormon is to argue that Joseph Smith could not have written it himself. His lack of education, the short amount of time involved in the "translating" of the book, and its sheer length and apparent complexity, are regarded as together indicating the virtual impossibility of his having created the book from his own imagination.

To these stock arguments Christians have made a number of important responses. The Book of Mormon in many ways reflects Joseph Smith’s lack of education. At the same time its stories are consistent with Joseph’s reputation, reported by family and friends, to have been a skilled story-teller even in his youth. At least one-tenth, and possibly one-fifth, of the Book of Mormon is substantially identical to portions of the Bible (including whole chapters from Isaiah). Joseph may have been preparing to produce the Book of Mormon for months before he actually dictated it, and in fact the number of pages dictated per day was not great. He also appears to have utilized sources, notably Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews (on which I shall have more to say shortly), and possibly others as well.

Thus, it is possible that Joseph Smith created the Book of Mormon himself. However, some have argued that he plagiarized most of it from a novel by Solomon Spalding, with passages of the Bible thrown in for good measure. Admittedly, there are serious problems with this theory as a complete explanation of the book’s origin, and valid objections to some of the arguments recently put forth in favor of the theory. Still, it is plausible that Joseph Smith did get ideas or even material directly or indirectly from one or another manuscript by Spalding.

The most likely explanation is that Joseph Smith produced the Book of Mormon by combining ideas from various sources with his own imagination and some plagiarism from the Bible and other sources. This is a more complicated theory, but it is able to account for the totality of the Book of Mormon in a way that simpler theories cannot. What is really beyond serious dispute is the conclusion that the Book of Mormon makes use of various sources that reflect an origin in the nineteenth century.

2. View of the Hebrews

a. B. H. Roberts’s Analysis

The most important source used by Joseph Smith, other than the Bible, appears to have been Ethan Smith’s View of the Hebrews. Written by a Vermont minister in 1823 (with a second edition in 1825), this book argued that the American Indians were descendants of the "lost tribes of Israel" and urged Christians to evangelize the Indians in fulfillment of biblical prophecies, particularly prophecies found in the book of Isaiah. Numerous parallels between View of the Hebrews and the Book of Mormon have been identified by various writers, most notably the Mormon scholar B. H. Roberts.

Mormon apologists have sought to deny the evidence for Joseph Smith’s dependence on Ethan Smith’s book in various ways. They have argued that B. H. Roberts listed the parallels with the belief that a careful study would prove that the parallels did not indicate literary dependence. Of course, what Roberts thought about the parallels is really irrelevant to whether or not they actually indicate such dependence.

b. The Extent of the Parallels

More to the point, Mormons have frequently argued that there are only a few similarities and many dissimilarities between the two books, disproving literary dependence. But such reasoning is fallacious, since all that is being claimed is that View of the Hebrews is a major source of the Book of Mormon, not that it is the only source. It should also be noted that the number of parallels has generally been underestimated. David Persuitte lists some 61 parallels between the two books, many of which can hardly be explained on any other basis than literary dependence.

c. The Use of Isaiah in the Two Books

In one interesting article, two Mormon scholars argued that Joseph Smith did not plagiarize the Isaiah chapters of the Book of Mormon from View of the Hebrews. They claimed that if the two books were produced independently, one would still expect (on the basis of a complicated statistical analysis that need not be discussed here) that about 8 of the 66 chapters of Isaiah would appear in both books. Since actually 9 of the 66 chapters appear in both books, they conclude that the number of chapters common to both is not statistically significant, and therefore that Joseph Smith did not plagiarize these chapters from View of the Hebrews.

However, this very sophisticated argument assumes that both books will quote extensively from Isaiah. Only on the basis of this assumption can they claim that "the odds are approximately one in a million against there being no common chapters in the Book of Mormon and View of the Hebrews." There are, of course, millions of books which do not copy from Isaiah at all! This simple point completely invalidates the mathematical argumentation in this article. The more relevant statistic is that of the 20 chapters of Isaiah which Smith copied into the Book of Mormon, nine of them (or 45%) also appeared in View of the Hebrews.

Of course, even if it could be shown that Joseph Smith did not plagiarize Ethan Smith’s use of Isaiah, that would not change the fact that he plagiarized Isaiah itself! This leads us to consider in more detail the use of the Bible in the Book of Mormon.

3. The Use of the Bible

a. Summary of the Evidence

As is well known, the Book of Mormon contains numerous sentences and paragraphs and in many cases whole chapters repeated from the Bible, usually duplicating the King James Version nearly word-for-word. A whopping 16 out of 55 chapters in the first two books of the Book of Mormon (1 Nephi 20-21; 2 Nephi 12-24, 27) are acknowledged duplications of 20 chapters from Isaiah in the Bible (Isaiah 48-52; 2-14, 29, 53). In the remainder of the Book of Mormon a full 7 chapters are repeated from the Bible (Mosiah 14 = Isaiah 53; 3 Nephi 12-14 = Matthew 5-7; 3 Nephi 22 = Isaiah 54; 3 Nephi 24-25 = Malachi 3-4). In all, over one-tenth of the chapters in the Book of Mormon are repetitions of chapters in the Bible. Yet this is just the tip of the iceberg, since biblical statements are found scattered throughout the Book of Mormon. It is probably fair to say that at least one-fifth of the Book of Mormon is taken from the Bible.

b. The LDS Explanation

Mormon apologists generally do not now deny that Joseph Smith copied whole chapters from Isaiah and other books of the Bible in the King James Version into the Book of Mormon. It is simply too obvious. They explain this copying by saying that the work of translating the Book of Mormon from the plates was such spiritually and mentally draining work that when Smith came to passages virtually identical to the Bible he simply used the KJV as "a reasonably good translation already existing."

c. Smith’s Use of Isaiah

This explanation is difficult to square with the fact that the biblical chapters copied into the Book of Mormon contain numerous minor variations. If Joseph Smith used the King James Version to simplify his translation task, why the minor changes? Some Mormons have claimed that these changes can be shown in the case of the Isaiah chapters to reflect a more accurate original text of Isaiah. This claim depends on selecting just those ancient variations of the biblical Isaiah text that disagree with the Hebrew text and that agree with the Book of Mormon. Since there are many ancient variant readings to choose from, it is rather easy to compile a list of readings favorable to the Book of Mormon; thus, there is some reason to doubt the validity of this claim. But more important, the claim conflicts with the explanation that Joseph Smith simply used the King James Version to make his translation work easier.

d. Smith’s Use of the Sermon on the Mount

Worse still, one Mormon scholar tried to prove that the section of the Book of Mormon which parallels the Sermon on the Mount (3 Nephi 12-14, cf. Matt. 5-7) reflects an accurate text, and ended up proving instead that the Book of Mormon followed the King James Version in various translation errors.

A more fundamental problem is why Jesus would deliver virtually the exact same sermon to the Nephites as he had to the Jews. According to the Book of Mormon, the Jews in Palestine and the Nephites in America were separated by six centuries and by thousands of miles. Yet in this sermon Jesus’ teaching presupposes the context of the Jewish nation in first-century Palestine. Specifically, he was criticizing the Pharisees, a religious group originating in Palestine four centuries after the Nephites supposedly left Palestine! For example, in the statement, "thou shalt love thy neighbor and hate thine enemy" (3 Nephi 12:43), "and hate thine enemy" was a Pharisaic interpretive addition to the Old Testament command to love one’s neighbor. The Sermon also refers to synagogues, a Jewish institution that did not originate until after the supposed journey of Lehi and his family from Jerusalem just before the Babylonian captivity. Such examples could be multiplied.
The best explanation of the presence of whole chapters from the King James Version in the Book of Mormon, then, remains that Joseph Smith used these chapters to "pad" the Book of Mormon.

C. No Physical Evidence for the Book of Mormon

The positive evidence for a nineteenth century origin of the Book of Mormon based on a source analysis is matched by the negative lack of evidence for its originating in the ancient world. One of the most striking problems for the Book of Mormon is the absolute lack of physical evidence that the book ever existed prior to the 1820s. We do not mean evidence that the Book of Mormon is true in all or even most of its details; we mean evidence that the Book of Mormon so much as existed prior to its publication by Joseph Smith. This is an important distinction, because we are not denying a place for "faith" in the sense of believing things that go beyond what we can verify empirically. We are simply saying that faith must be based on something with a decent measure of credibility, something totally lacking in the case of the Book of Mormon.

1. No Bibliographical Evidence

a. Absolute Lack of Pre-19th Century Copies

The most direct sort of proof for the existence of the Book of Mormon before the 1820s would be copies that can be dated as having been produced before that time. Such evidence is absolutely lacking, as all Mormons admit. The golden plates have been conveniently taken into custody by an angel. No ancient document duplicating or quoting from any portion of the Book of Mormon has ever been found anywhere — except, of course, for those portions of the Book of Mormon quoting from the Bible! By contrast, hundreds of manuscript copies of the Bible dating between the first century B.C. and the third century A.D., and thousands more dating from the fourth century on, can be viewed by the public in museums and university libraries all over the world. For this reason no one, Christian or not, can rationally doubt that the books of the Bible were written in the ancient past. By contrast, only Mormons regard the Book of Mormon as an ancient document. As one Mormon scholar put it: "The Book of Mormon exists. It was first published in the state of New York in 1830 by Joseph Smith. On these facts all men seem to agree. What is not generally agreed upon is an explanation for the book’s existence."

b. The Anthon Transcript

The only physical evidence for the Book of Mormon as an ancient document that is known to exist is the "Anthon transcript," a piece of paper (rediscovered recently) on which Joseph Smith wrote down some of the characters allegedly found on the gold plates. Even this evidence would have to be regarded as indirect since it was written in the 1820s by Smith. According to Joseph Smith’s account in Pearl of Great Price, he gave Martin Harris (one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon) this paper with some of the characters translated and some not. Harris took this "transcript" to a Columbia professor named Charles Anthon, who "stated that the translation was correct, more so than any he had before seen translated from the Egyptian. I [Harris] then showed him those which were not yet translated, and he said that they were Egyptian, Chaldaic, Assyriac, and Arabic; and he said they were true characters" (Joseph Smith--History 1:64). When Harris stated that the characters were copied from gold plates revealed by an angel and that he could not bring them to Anthon because they "were sealed," Anthon replied, "I cannot read a sealed book" (1:65).

Of the many problems associated with this story, two call for special attention. Anthon is said to have praised the translation as the best he had ever seen. Yet no one has been able to translate any of the characters on the Anthon transcript (which still exists ). The second problem is that it is unthinkable that characters from the four languages mentioned would be combined in one running text, especially since some of them use alphabets and some hieroglyphics (pictures standing for words). Such a text would be about as bizarre as one combining English lettering with, say, pictorial representations of sign language, or braille!

Recent scholarly treatments of the Anthon transcript by Mormons have compared its characters to Egyptian and certain American Indian scripts, but such comparisons have not confirmed the genuineness of the Book of Mormon script nor produced any translation of the transcript. Mormon scholars have also argued that Anthon was lying when he later denied authenticating the transcript, while ignoring the problem of how Anthon could have authenticated what Mormon scriptures say was an undecipherable text. The same objection must be raised to efforts by Mormon scholars to explain in great detail how Egyptian might have evolved into "Reformed Egyptian."

2. No Linguistic Evidence

The problem of Reformed Egyptian leads us to discuss the first of many kinds of indirect physical evidence of which none has yet to be found supporting the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. There is no evidence for such a language as "Reformed Egyptian," the language in which the Book of Mormon was supposedly written. Nor is there any evidence that languages of the Native American peoples in the Western Hemisphere were influenced by the Egyptian or Hebrew languages. By contrast, of course, we have abundant evidence of the existence of the biblical languages not only from ancient copies of the biblical writings themselves but also from archaeological finds such as scrolls, papyri, and other objects on which writing in those languages appear.

As with many of the problems associated with the Book of Mormon, this problem goes deeper than a mere lack of evidence. It is, to put it mildly, odd to learn that the descendants of Lehi wrote all of their sacred writings in a language of Egypt. Lehi would have lived nearly a millennium after the Israelites left Egypt. All of the Jewish Scriptures were written in Hebrew or in Aramaic, a closely related language using the same basic alphabet.

3. No Anthropological Evidence

There is no evidence for the introduction of a Semitic ethnic people into the Western Hemisphere at any time prior to the second millennium A.D. By contrast, of course, the basic history of the Semitic peoples in the Middle East, including that of the Israelites in Old Testament times and the Jews in New Testament times, is beyond dispute.

On the other hand, there is abundant evidence to show that the idea that the American Indians were Israelites was a popular conception in Joseph Smith’s area and time. This was, in fact, the basic premise of View of the Hebrews, the book discussed earlier as a likely source of much of the Book of Mormon. Hence, we have a perfectly natural explanation for how such an idea found its way into the Book of Mormon.

4. No Geographical Evidence

a. Not Even Mormons Are Sure

One of the most interesting ways in which Mormons are trying to defend the Book of Mormon is by claiming that the geography of the Book of Mormon fits with great precision the geography of some portion of Central America. Unfortunately, Mormon scholars are currently debating which part of Central America it fits! In fact, the situation is even more complicated. The Book of Mormon lands have also been said to encompass either the entire Western Hemisphere (the traditional view) or the western regions of South America. Actually, the traditional view would seem to be the best interpretation of the Book of Mormon, since it was "discovered" buried in a hill in upstate New York! Still, most Mormons have abandoned this theory in favor of a Central American theory. In Central America there are at least three or four different areas claimed to be the Book of Mormon lands — the Costa Rica area, the Yucatan peninsula, and the Tehuantepec area including Guatemala and southern Mexico.

b. The Two Lands and the "Narrow Neck of Land"

Still, in recent years something approaching a consensus has developed among Mormon scholars that the Tehuantepec theory is correct. John L. Sorenson’s An Ancient American Setting for the Book of Mormon is the standard reference here. But even here serious problems remain. The Book of Mormon references to a "narrow neck of land" between the "land northward" and "land southward" have until recently always been interpreted to refer to an isthmus, and on the Sorenson theory this is the Isthmus of Tehuantepec. One difficulty with this view (there are several) is that the isthmus is not particularly narrow in comparison with the lands on either side of it. But a recent book by Richard Hauck argues that the "narrow neck" is a coastal strip along the Pacific connecting Mexico and Guatemala. This view conflicts with the Book of Mormon itself: It states that "the land of Nephi and the land of Zarahemla were nearly surrounded by water, there being a small neck of land between the land northward and the land southward" (Alma 22:32). Here the statement that the lands of Nephi and Zarahemla were "nearly surrounded by water" is explained by the statement that a "small neck of land" connected them to the lands northward (note Hauck’s artificial separation of these two statements ). What both views have difficulty explaining is that on this view the land "northward" is actually northwest of the land "southward."

c. The Four Seas

An even more troublesome feature of Book of Mormon "geography" is its clear reference to four seas — north, south, east, and west (Helaman 3:8). On Sorenson’s view the east sea is the Gulf of Mexico and the west sea is the Gulf of Tehuantepec on the Pacific side. But this view places the east and west seas due north and south of each other! Hauck therefore makes these two gulfs the north and south seas. But both views must strain to come up with four seas. Hauck argues that the east sea is the Caribbean, which is not impossible, but then must identify the west sea as a part of the Gulf of Tehuantepec, that is, as part of the south sea. Thus in effect Hauck can only come up with three seas, not four. This is one of the most glaring difficulties for any Central American theory of the Book of Mormon.

d. Assumptions of Mormon Archaeologists

In evaluating these attempts to correlate the Book of Mormon with the geography of Central America, it is important to note the assumptions made by the authors. Both Sorenson and Hauck, for example, make it clear that they are assuming that the Book of Mormon is both internally consistent and historically authentic. Both writers also try to argue that Book of Mormon archaeology is basically at the same stage as was biblical archaeology in its infancy, and Hauck makes much of the fact that biblical scholars do not regard archaeology as "proving" the Bible but only confirming its historicity.

On this last point it is necessary to point out that the basic historicity of the Bible as an ancient document referring to real places never needed proving by archaeology because it was never in doubt. We have always known where Jerusalem, Bethlehem, the Dead Sea, the Sea of Galilee, the Jordan River, Egypt, Syria, Babylon, Rome, Athens, Corinth, Crete, and many other such biblical places are located. Biblical archaeology has not "proved" the Bible in this sense because the facts were undeniable even to unbelievers. The usefulness of archaeology has been in filling in some of the details, not in authenticating the Bible as an ancient collection of basically historical books. The situation is much different with the Book of Mormon. No one had ever heard of Zarahemla, Nephi, Manti, Cumorah, or Mormon until 1830, and still none of the Book of Mormon place names can be positively identified.

5. No Biographical Evidence

There is no evidence for the existence of any of the Book of Mormon characters other than those who appear in the Bible (Isaiah, Malachi, Christ). Lehi, Nephi, Omni, Mosiah, Alma, Mormon, and all of the other distinctive Book of Mormon characters are completely unattested figures. By contrast, many of the figures of the Bible, from the Pharoahs to Nebuchadnezzar to Herod and Pontius Pilate, are known from extrabiblical sources. Even John the Baptist and Jesus are mentioned in extrabiblical, non-Christian sources (both Jewish and Roman) from the first century. Most of these figures have been known to us all along — we did not need modern archaeology to verify their existence.

6. No Historical Evidence

There is no evidence for the many specific events described in the Book of Mormon. In particular, there is no evidence for a transatlantic voyage of Israelites in the sixth century B.C., and no evidence for the occurrence of the massive wars said to have been fought by Lehi’s descendants in th