Today, in our new teaching series called: “Jesus is…” we taught on the belief system of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. The following is the historical time line to help you process the development of Mormonism.
1805
Joseph Smith, Jr., the founder of the organization now called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (the Mormon Church), is born on December 23rd in Sharon, Vermont, the fourth child of Lucy Mack and Joseph Smith.
1816
The Smiths move to the Palmyra, New York, area (about forty miles east of Rochester).
1820
In the spring Joseph Smith, Jr., at the age of 14, allegedly receives a visit from God the Father and Jesus Christ, who tell him that all churches are wrong, their creeds are an abomination, and the professors of those creeds are corrupt.
My [Joseph Smith’s] object in going to inquire of the Lord was to know which of all the sects was right, that I might know which to join. No sooner, therefore, did I get possession of myself, so as to be able to speak, than I asked the Personages who stood above me in the light, which of all the sects was right (for at this time it had never entered into my heart that all were wrong)—and which I should join. I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: “they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.” … I then said to my mother, “I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true.”
(Joseph Smith—History 1:18–20, in Pearl of Great Price, a work viewed by Mormons as scripture)
1823
The angel Moroni allegedly visits Joseph in his bedroom three times one September night. These visits are the start of a series of lessons that results in Joseph’s getting gold plates that were allegedly buried in Hill Cumorah, just a few miles south of Palmyra, in Manchester, New York.
“He called me by name, and said unto me that he was a messenger sent from the presence of God to me, and that his name was *Moroni; that God had a work for me to do; and that my name should be had for good and evil among all nations, kindreds, and tongues, or that it should be both good and evil spoken of among all people.” (Joseph Smith—History 1:33)
*Note: His name was also Nephi according to the first edition of the Pearl of Great Price [1851] and the April 15, 1842, Times and Seasons 3:753, under “History of Joseph Smith.” This official version was not written until 1838, eighteen years after the alleged event. Also, there is some discrepancy regarding the age of Joseph Smith at this time. The official position of the LDS (Latter-Day Saints) is that he was 17, but some records indicate he was 15.
1826
Court records of Chenango County, State of New York, People v. Joseph Smith The Glass Looker, March 20, 1826, reveal that Joseph Smith was brought to trial on charges of money digging, using a “peep stone” to locate buried treasure.
1827
Joseph allegedly receives from the angel Moroni the gold plates that were buried in Hill Cumorah. Written on them in “Reformed Egyptian” is the history of a previously unknown New World people. With the help of God Joseph translates the writing into what is now the Book of Mormon.
1829
On May 15 John the Baptist allegedly gives the Aaronic Priesthood to Joseph Smith and his scribe Oliver Cowdery as part of the restoration of God’s Church on Earth—authority that had been lost after the death of the last Apostle.
1829
Probably in the summer, as a continuation of the restoration of God’s Church, the Apostles Peter, James, and John allegedly give Joseph and Oliver the Melchizedek Priesthood.
1830
The Book of Mormon is printed by the Grandin Print Shop in Palmyra, New York.
1830
On April 6, the Mormon Church is organized with a handful of people as God’s one true Church on Earth. At this time it is named the Church of Christ.
1831
The Mormon Church moves to Kirtland, Ohio. At its peak in the 1830s Kirtland reaches a population of around 3,200—about equal to nearby Cleveland.
1832
Mormons start settlements in Missouri.
1833
A collection of sixty-five alleged revelations from God to Joseph Smith is published as the Book of Commandments.
1834
The name of the Church is changed to the Church of the Latter Day Saints.
1838
Joseph leaves Kirtland and goes to Far West, Missouri, fleeing the wrath of the law and disgruntled members.
1838
The name of the Church is changed to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
1838
About nineteen Mormon men, women, and children are massacred by non-Mormons at Hauns Mill, Missouri.
1839
Mormons are driven out of Missouri due to conflicts between them and non-Mormons.
1839
Settlement of what is to become Nauvoo, Illinois, starts.
1840
The Mormon Church has swelled to about 17,000 members.
1844
Joseph Smith, John Taylor, and other members of the community, in the Mormon Church newspaper, deny that polygamy is practiced, even though it is.
1843
The alleged revelation from God that allows the practice of polygamy is received, but is not formally announced until 1852, is not included in Mormon scripture until 1876, and is not voted on until 1880. (This is the present-day D&C 132, which says in its heading that Joseph had known the doctrine and principles since 1831.)
1844
The city of Nauvoo, Illinois, has a population of about 12,000; it is the second largest city in the state, after Chicago. Joseph Smith is the mayor and lieutenant-general of the Nauvoo legion.
On April 7, 1844 Joseph Smith delivers the “King Follett Discourse” in which various heretical doctrines are taught. See the full text of the-king-follett-discourse. This message has been called, “the the greatest talk ever given in this dispensation.”
(LDS teacher Karl T. Haglund in Theological Questions, Sept. 1971, p.24)
1844
On June 7, William Law publishes The Nauvoo Expositor, which exposes the practice of polygamy in Nauvoo and the teaching by Joseph Smith that there is more than one God.
1844
On June 10, under the authority of Mayor Smith and the Nauvoo City Council, police led by Smith destroy the press, office, and papers of The Nauvoo Expositor.
1844
On June 25 Joseph Smith and Hyrum Smith are arrested for their part in the illegal destruction of The Nauvoo Expositor press and office. Joseph Smith and three others are held in the jail in Carthage, Illinois when, on June 27, a mob attacks the jail, killing Joseph in spite of his efforts at self-defense with a six-shooter.
1846
Brigham Young, the second President of the LDS Church, leads the Mormon trek to what is then a portion of Mexico and will become Salt Lake City, Utah. They arrive there in 1847.
1850
Mormon Church membership numbers about 52,000.
1851
The first edition of the Pearl of Great Price is published. It is added to the Mormon scriptures in 1880.
1852
In August, polygamy is announced for the first time at a public Mormon meeting.
1857
On September 11 a combined force of Indians and Mormon militia led by Mormon Bishop John D. Lee attacks and annihilates a wagon train of 120 non-Mormon men, women, and children in the infamous Mountain Meadows Massacre.
1862
The Morrill Act prohibiting polygamy is passed by the U.S. Congress.
1876
Doctrine and Covenants 132, which allows polygamy, is first printed in a volume of Mormon scripture.
1880
In October D&C 132, on polygamy, is first voted on by the Mormon membership.
1882
Congress passes the Edmunds Act, providing heavy penalties for practicing polygamy. The practice continues by many in hiding.
1890
The Edmunds-Tucker Act dissolves the Mormon Church corporation and seizes its property. The Idaho test oath law disenfranchises Mormon voters. A short time later the Supreme Court finds the Idaho test oath constitutional. Legislation is drafted to disenfranchise Mormons in Utah.
1890
On September 25 Mormon Church President Wilford Woodruff issues his Manifesto asking Mormons to stop the practice of polygamy. At a Mormon Church General Conference on October 6 this Manifesto, now called Official Declaration—1, is accepted by the general membership as “authoritative and binding.” This does not reject the revelation allowing polygamy (D&C 132); it just puts the practice aside.
1890
Mormon Church membership is about 188,000.
1950
Mormon Church membership is about 1,111,000.
1970
Mormon Church membership is about 2,931,000.
1980
Mormon Church has about 4,640,000 members.
1991
Mormon Church swells to about 8,100,000 members, about 267 mission centers, and about 43,000 missionaries in the field.
1993
The Mormon Church has about 8,700,000 members.
2008
Today, there are an estimated 12,868,606 members of the Mormon Church world-wide.
Wow! I appreciate the timeline; it makes it easier to understand.
Lots of writing there! Great job!!
Actually, the revelation on polygamy was voted upon by the Church in conference 29th of August, 1852–rather than 1880 as you indicate above. It was published in the Salt Lake newspaper two weeks after the vote.
Thanks for the clarification. Do you have a cite source so I can update my notes?
It appears in two sources: It was printed in pamphlet form as Deseret News, Extra, Containing a Revelation on Celestial Marriage, a Remarkable Vision,(Great Salt Lake City, UT, 14 September 1852)and in the Latter-Day Saints Millennial Star, volume XV published in the addendum.
I think your chronology is incomplete since it fails to mention what Mormons believe is the most important event–the appearance of the Father and Son to Joseph Smith in 1820.
You also indicate that Mormons believe in an apostasy that “authority that had been lost shortly after Jesus died.” It would be more accurate to say that Mormons believe that the necessary authority was lost to the earth after the death of all the apostles, rather than shortly after the death of Christ; since the death of Christ had no impact on the apostasy.
Alma, thank you for your input. You were exactly right and I have updated the time-line with the additions you mentioned. Thanks!
Sorry to keep nitpicking, but in the August 1852 Conference, the revelation on plural marriage was publicly announced and voted upon as a tenet of the religion.
The Pearl of Great Price was a pamphlet published in England in 1851, containing several items including a hymn, Joseph Smith’s 1832 prophecy on war, selections of revelations from the book Doctrine and Covenants and selections of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible and Book of Abraham. A revised version of the pamphlet was compiled and canonized in 1880, without the selections from the D&C but with more extensive citations from the (JST) Bible and Book of Abraham and without the hymn. While the two compilations share the same name, the 1880 version that was canonized is significantly different from the 1851 pamphlet.
Alma, you know Mormon history very well; are you a practicing Mormon or involved in the LDS church?
O’Ryan (I never thought of it as a particularly Irish constellation):
I plead guilty. I am LDS and have taught LDS History in a University setting for about 15 years. I have to give kudos to Dan Miller for his efforts at accuracy. Generally, these types of explanations aren’t nearly as reliable. He’s done a good job.
If you look real close, you can see the shamrock on his belt.
Given what the our church has been talking about this week you had to know this was coming. Why do you think what the LDS church teaches is true? Specifically as to who the LDS church teaches Jesus to be.
O’Ryan,
I’m not sure it would be appropriate for me to go into reasons for my faith here–given that this isn’t my web site and I’m not even an invited guest. A brief answer would be that I believe the teachings are consistent with scripture and logic.
Alma, we welcome you (formally) to the discussion. I find it very helpful to have an academic Latter-Day Saint involved in the interaction. Also, thank you for your razor sharp input in regard to the historical development of Mormonism. I would welcome your input in response to O’Ryan. I would also understand if you found this forum too limiting.
Note: We really do encourage dialogue on these types of subjects since we firmly believe God doesn’t play “hide n’ seek” He is interested in “seek n’ find.” Thanks again.
After reading Dan’s kind invitation, I listened to the MP3 titled “Jesus Is…” expecting to find what O’Ryan might have had in mind in asking me why I think what the LDS Church teaches is true wrt who Jesus is. Although I didn’t notice very much in that presentation about what we teach concerning who Christ is, I did hear a comment that wasn’t quite accurate in that regard. The speaker said that Mormonism teaches that “He (Jesus) was once a man and became a God.”
You won’t find that doctrine anywhere in an authoritative Mormon source. While he cited the King Follett discourse, its reference that God the Father was once a man “like us” isn’t teaching that Christ was a man before He was God. LDS doctrine asserts that Jesus Christ was God before He was a Man. As an example (I’m not sure how to embed citations here) Joseph Smith offers this as a statement from Jesus Christ: “Thus saith the Lord your God, even Jesus Christ, the Great I AM, Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the same which looked upon the wide expanse of eternity, and all the seraphic hosts of heaven, before the world was made; …I am the same which spake, and the world was made, and all things came by me.” (D&C 38:1-3)
It was at least 3,500 years after that event that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, became a Man. Many other passages of LDS scripture affirm the teaching that Christ was God before he was Man.
Was there something else regarding our concept of who Christ is that I should have addressed?
Alma
Alma, your input is invaluable. Thank you for making this point of clarification. I am always straining to represent another view accurately and you are most helpful in this regard. I should have been clearer that it was not the point in time at the incarnation in which Jesus became a god. Although I was not as clear, I am also not sure that anyone would think that was my point. I hope this blog will help clarify the teaching to that end.
I do have two questions regarding your point that: “You won’t find that doctrine anywhere (that Jesus became God) in an authoritative Mormon source. While he cited the King Follett discourse, its reference that God the Father was once a man ‘”like us”‘ isn’t teaching that Christ was a man before He was God.”
1 Does not the plan reading of the words of Joseph Smith lend a person to believe that he intended his audience to believe that the phrase, in reference to Jesus at one point being, “like us” would convey the idea that Jesus became a god? When read in context it would be hard for the hearer to believe otherwise, would it not?
2Is it not Mormon doctrine that God the Father was once a man? Also, while it is true that Jesus was a God prior to his being born, is it not also true that there was a time in history past that Jesus was a mortal and became a God?
No, I don’t think that a plain reading of his words indicate that, unless read carelessly. He doesn’t reference Jesus as having been “like us,” that phrase referred to the Father as having been a man and that he lived on an earth the same as Jesus did. Though Jesus was a man, his life was infinitely different than ours. He was God in the flesh. Taking the plain meaning of Joseph Smith’s statement would indicate that the Father lived on an earth the same as Jesus did (rather than as we do.)
2) No, it isn’t doctrine that He once was a man. It is certainly implied, but the only official doctrine is that “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s;” (D&C 130:22) Mormons have a canon of scripture that limits its official doctrine. Statements outside of that canon aren’t official doctrine–even discourses such as the King Follett discourse. When teaching is added to the canon of scripture it becomes Mormon doctrine. There are lots of true facts that exist outside the canon, but LDS people are expected to accept official doctrine and they don’t have to accept speculative theology. I personally agree with the statement found in the KFD, (“It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.”) but it still has not been canonized.
The second part of your question, “is it not also true that there was a time in history past that Jesus was a mortal and became a God?” is not true–if I understand your question correctly. When Christ was mortal, that is–from the time of his birth to the virgin Mary until his death on the cross, he was already God. Nothing in LDS scripture references a time when He was not God. We do believe the scripture that says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Whatever point of time “the beginning” references, the Word was already God. His mortal life took place long after “the beginning.”
Alma, Thanks for the conversation. I appreciate the opportunity to talk to someone who knows his faith.
I have a couple more questions, First, there must be a difference in historical christian theology and LDS theology. In your opinion what is the greatest difference in the two?
How does the LDS church approach Islam? Both teach the historical church is corrupt, both teach another true prophet has come back to realign the true church, both have an orthopraxy that is required to make God propitious.
Finally, what does the LDS church teach regarding who the Holy Spirit is?
Thanks again.
O’Ryan wrote: “I have a couple more questions, First, there must be a difference in historical Christian theology and LDS theology. In your opinion what is the greatest difference in the two?”
I’d say the nature of God, man, salvation, scripture and revelation.
How does the LDS church approach Islam?
Cautiously. The LDS Church teaches that the great religious leaders of the world such as Mohammed, Confucius, and the Reformers, received a portion of God’s light and were led to a certain extent by the spirit of God. However, Islam’s rejection of Christ as God (as taught in the Quran) surely indicates they’re on another page of another book…
Both teach the historical church is corrupt,
I’d really take exception with that. I don’t think Islam considers the historical church at all. Most Moslems I’ve talked to reject Christianity entirely. I’d also take exception with the idea that we believe that the historical church is corrupt—depending on how you perceive the word “corrupt.” My dictionary gives several definitions for corrupted—“rotten, spoiled, with unsound moral values”–none of which conveys our perception. While we do believe that the Savior and his apostles prophesied that the Church would not survive intact, the fulfillment of those prophecies still allows that sound moral values and inspired scripture would survive.
both teach another true prophet has come back to realign the true church,
Islam teaches that Mohammed was God’s final prophet—as opposed to LDS theology–which allows for many prophets both before and since Joseph Smith. We share Moses’ hope—“would God that all the Lord’s people were prophets, and that the Lord would put his spirit upon them.” (Numbers 11:29).
We don’t see the work of Joseph Smith as a realignment but rather as a restoration.
both have an orthopraxy that is required to make God propitious.
I disagree most with the above comment. There isn’t anything anyone can do to change God—to make Him more or less propitious. Mormonism teaches that Jesus Christ is the author of eternal salvation to obedient believers. Obedience to God changes us rather than God.
Finally, what does the LDS church teach regarding who the Holy Spirit is?
The Holy Spirit is the third member of the Godhead, a personage of Spirit. One of our apostles from about a 100 years ago wrote, “The Holy Ghost, called also Spirit, and Spirit of the Lord, Spirit of God, Comforter, and Spirit of Truth, is not tabernacled in a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of spirit; yet we know that the Spirit has manifested Himself in the form of a man. Through the ministrations of the Spirit, the Father and the Son may operate in their dealings with mankind; through Him knowledge is communicated, and by Him the purposes of the Godhead are achieved. The Holy Ghost is the witness of the Father and the Son, declaring to man their attributes, bearing record of the other personages of the Godhead.” (James E. Talmage, The Articles of Faith, God and the Holy Trinity, p. 42).
I imagine those answers may provoke more questions. I have tried to provide some effects to the text of my message such as italics. If it doesn’t work, I apologize.
Alma
Alma, I do hope you don’t feel like you are being unfairly pelted with questions. We do appreciate your time and thoughtful replies. I would like to follow up a couple of your replies with clarifying questions. You mentioned:
“No, it isn’t doctrine that He [Jesus, emphasis mine] once was a man. It is certainly implied, but the only official doctrine is that “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s;” (D&C 130:22)”
Ques. Are Mormon’s not taught in the Church that Jesus was once a man by the LDS teachers? Have you taught that Jesus was once a man to your students?
Also, you said,
“Mormons have a canon of scripture that limits its official doctrine. Statements outside of that canon aren’t official doctrine–even discourses such as the King Follett discourse.”
Does this mean that the LDS Church would consider what Joseph Smith says in this discourse as wrong or at least non-authoritative to the Church? In other words, would his teaching in this speech be considered “speculative theology?”
Let me clarify the second part of my question since you seemed to believe I was speaking about Jesus’ deity after the incarnation:
Part A. According to LDS doctrine, was Jesus always God in time past (eternity) or was he a created being and became a God?
Part B. According to LDS doctrine, is this process (that Jesus went through to achieve divine status) also available for me to go through in order to become like Jesus, a God?
Alma, I do hope you don’t feel like you are being unfairly pelted with questions. We do appreciate your time and thoughtful replies. I would like to follow up a couple of your replies with clarifying questions. You mentioned:
I don’t feel pelted at all.
“No, it isn’t doctrine that He [Jesus, emphasis mine] once was a man. It is certainly implied, but the only official doctrine is that “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s;” (D&C 130:22)”
I think you misunderstood my answer. Your question #2 asked, “Is it not Mormon doctrine that God the Father was once a man?” I answered, “No, it isn ‘t doctrine that He once was a man.” You added the word “Jesus” but I was referring to the Father. It is doctrine that Jesus once was a man, but that is evident from the New Testament—wouldn’t you agree?
Ques. Are Mormon’s not taught in the Church that Jesus was once a man by the LDS teachers? Have you taught that Jesus was once a man to your students?
I teach that all the time. It is part of what Joseph Smith referred to as the fundamental principle of our religion: “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
“Mormons have a canon of scripture that limits its official doctrine. Statements outside of that canon aren’t official doctrine–even discourses such as the King Follett discourse.” Does this mean that the LDS Church would consider what Joseph Smith says in this discourse as wrong or at least non-authoritative to the Church? In other words, would his teaching in this speech be considered “speculative theology?”
Speculative, yes; not authoritative to the Church, but not necessarily wrong. A Mormon could be considered a faithful member of the church who didn’t accept the King Follett discourse. He would not be so considered if he rejected either the Bible or any other part of our canon.
Let me clarify the second part of my question since you seemed to believe I was speaking about Jesus’ deity after the incarnation:
Part A. According to LDS doctrine, was Jesus always God in time past (eternity) or was he a created being and became a God?
That’s pretty difficult to answer. LDS doctrine teaches that all of us (humans) are spirit children of God the Father and that Jesus is the Firstborn spirit child of the Father. (Our perception of “created being” is significantly different than yours.) We believe that there is an eternal part of each of us that is not created. Just what is meant by “spirit birth” is open for individual interpretation because our scriptures also indicate that spirits have “no beginning” and are eternal. In our book of Moses (produced by Joseph Smith), Moses asks God to show him His other creations and God replies, “…worlds without number have I created; …and by the Son I created them. …But only an account of this earth, and the inhabitants thereof, give I unto you.” I take from this that there is a lot pertaining to eternity that has not yet been revealed.
Part B. According to LDS doctrine, is this process (that Jesus went through to achieve divine status) also available for me to go through in order to become like Jesus, a God?
I wouldn’t say that the process Jesus went through is open to us because I don’t know if He went through a process to become God; but, yes, there is a process available to you in order to become like Him. It’s called the plan of salvation—“whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature,” –“To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.”
Hi guys. Yeah, I’ve been lurking. I’ll be brief: one point of clarification that I hope cuts to the heart of what Dan’s driving at.
Alma, you said,
And later on, you said,
There are essentially two views to be had here: Jesus was once a man and became God, or He was God and became a man. Alma makes it clear that he (I’m defaulting to the generic male pronoun in absence of a stated gender) believes the former is taught in the New Testament. If I understand the position correctly, it is that Jesus was the firstborn spirit baby of God the Father, and had the same “starting point” as anyone created “in the image of God,” but He was the first and He got it right, whereas we generally don’t get it right and have to learn from Him. (A sort of God-infused pre-existentianism.)
My personal view on this matter is that Jesus was God (to begin with, from all eternity) and became a man, and there was no process or point of becoming fully God for him. I actually see this view as “evident from the New Testament.” It seems that Jesus’ deity well preceded his humanity, and that he was not once a man. But I could be wrong.
Alma, when you say there is a process (salvation) available for us to become like Jesus, do you mean that 1) salvation eventually puts us on a level with Jesus, having the same relationship to God the Father that he currently has, or 2) salvation eventually restores us to the “likeness of God” in which mankind was originally created?
(Also, thanks so much for sticking around for this conversation! I know I’m learning a lot.)
Well, I haven’t been lurking; I’ve just now caught up with the blogs. I’m dying to ask a question, Alma: (sorry, it’s somewhat lacking in profundity). I’m betting on you being female, and grinning at the guys on here who assume you’re male because of your rational, intelligent, dispassionate discourse. I must say, Jeffrey carefully carved a caveat with his “generic male pronoun,” and if you’re a guy, then I’ll still think you have a really neat name or handle. And of course I don’t imply that our guys at the church are in the least chauvinistic – they truly aren’t. But still, if you’re female, no-one is going to wipe the smirk off my face for at least a week 😀
Sandra,
Perhaps you should not read my answer for about a week, lest you lose your smile. I think the guys haven’t assumed because they probably clicked on my blog where there is a picture of me. While “Alma” is generally a female name (Colin Powell’s wife is named Alma), it is also the name of a prophet from the Book of Mormon. In Utah, if you encounter an Alma, odds are that it’s a he.
Jeffrey,
It’s a pleasure to have you join the conversation. I don’t think you understood me correctly. (I’ve always had trouble with references to the “former” and “latter,” but I vehemently disagree with the idea that “Jesus was once a man and became God” as being my position or the position of Mormonism.
I know it gets difficult to separate time lines in a conversation such as this, but when I have stated that Jesus once was a man, I have tried to point out that he was a man subsequent to being God. He created the heavens and the earth before he was a man. Then, at about 1 B.C., he was born as the Son of Mary. During his mortal ministry, he was still God. I thought I had made clear that the New Testament teaches the latter, rather than the former of the two views you posited. “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” The birth of Jesus Christ occurred long after that beginning.
I don’t believe I have ever used the term “spirit babies” because it assumes more than is warranted. LDS scripture doesn’t specify how or in what way we became spirit children of God. A lot of non-Mormons and ex-Mormons like to suggest that the term “spirit babies” is legitimate; but I would never use it in an LDS environment. I don’t believe your characterization of Jesus being the first and “got it right” is at all accurate. We simply don’t know how or even if Jesus ever became God.
Perhaps I don’t understand your comment that “he was not once a man.” I too agree that his deity preceded his incarnation; but from the time of his birth until his death he was a man: with a body of flesh. I’d also add that when he was resurrected he became a man again—possessed of an immortal body of flesh and bones–and so remains to this day. But even though he is the “man Christ Jesus” he still is, was and will ever be, God.
In answer to your question about the process of salvation to become like Jesus, I would say your first option is closer than the second. I don’t know that we can ever be on a level with Jesus; but we can be like him in many respects—more so than being restored to the “likeness of God.” I’d say parenthetically, we are now in the likeness of God because that refers to our physical image. I don’t believe man was created in God’s moral image.
Awww. But I did check your site, and must say, there is no mistaking that you’re male 🙂 And if any doubt remained, the soldering iron story would kill that – hehe – just what my husband would do.
Seeing that you don’t feel easily pelted, I’d love to stand in line for an answer too. Dan posted elsewhere the discomfiting notion that when one encounters someone with a belief system that is fundamentally different from one’s own, chances are that one of you is wrong.
I assume you grew up with LDS, seeing that your parents named you after a prophet. Have you ever considered the notion that you may be wrong? How do you deal with that? Do you come to a place where you are 100% sure of the veracity of your beliefs? If so, how do you keep an open mind? What do you suggest would happen with your position before God if, just hypothetically, you should be mistaken?
I’m also a practicing Mormon (have been all my life).
I can respect that Alma doesn’t want to entertain the notion that Jesus somehow “became God” in any sense. That’s an acceptable read of LDS scriptures.
However, it is not the only read. I know plenty of LDS who do think that Jesus “became God” somehow and who even believe that God the Father “became God” as well. Certainly Joseph Smith’s King Follett sermon seems to imply this idea. By the way, even if the King Follett sermon is not formally canonized, it is one of the most well-documented on Joseph’s speeches and is a crucial address of his. I think Mormons who try to marginalize, or wave away this speech are on pretty shaky ground. The sermon was the theological capstone of Joseph’s entire prophetic ministry – delivered only a short while prior to his murder. If he had lived even one year longer, I have absolutely no doubt that it would have been canonized and this sermon would be in our current Doctrine and Covenants. We dismiss or ignore it at our peril I think.
There are a few different ways you can view the issue of the eternal nature of God and Jesus, and if people within the LDS faith want to have their own opinions, that’s fine – they are welcome to do so. But you can’t take such views and mandate them for the entire LDS Church.
This is why it is important to ask each individual Mormon what he or she personally believes and don’t automatically generalize those individual beliefs to the entire Church.
For myself, I am agnostic on the question if God the Father was ever anything less than God. I am also a bit agnostic on the question of whether Jesus was ever anything less than divine – although here I tend to lean in the direction of thinking that Jesus may not have always been divine. I do believe that Christ’s divinity is dependent on his relationship with God the Father and that Christ has no independent divinity of his own except through that relationship. I find this to be consistent with scripture.
One thing though, I don’t really like the tendency to shy away from Joseph Smith’s most radical teachings. I think we get in trouble, as a Church, whenever we stray too far from Joseph.
There most certainly are MAJOR differences between Mormonism and the rest of Christianity, but they aren’t always what most people think they are. In fact, very few people are aware of the most central and irreconcilable divide between Mormons and other Christians:
creation ex nihilo.
Traditional Christianity divides the existing universe into two categories: “Created” and “Uncreated.”
In the “uncreated” category, there is only God. Only God is self-existing and eternal.
Everything else is in the “created” category – rocks, trees, cats, dogs, people, galaxies…
This is a crucial framework for traditional Christianity and it forms the philosophical foundation for almost everything else in Christian theology.
Mormonism flatly rejects this view of the universe.
For Mormons, God is not the only eternal and uncreated thing in the universe. We are eternal. Mormons often refer to the most basic form of human identity as “intelligence.” This concept derives from scriptural passages such as Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8:
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.
Combined with Abraham 3:22-24:
22 Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones;
23 And God saw these souls that they were good, and he stood in the midst of them, and he said: These I will make my rulers; for he stood among those that were spirits, and he saw that they were good; and he said unto me: Abraham, thou art one of them; thou wast chosen before thou wast born.
24 And there stood one among them that was like unto God, and he said unto those who were with him: We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;
This is where we get the concept of “intelligences” as the term defining the most basic beginning state of human existence. Incidentally, the one “who was like unto God” in verse 24 is probably referring to Jesus.
Furthermore, Mormon scripture requires the conclusion that these “intelligences” are uncreated and co-eternal with God. The key passage here is Doctrine and Covenants 93:20-30:
20 For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace.
21 And now, verily I say unto you, I was in the beginning with the Father, and am the Firstborn;
22 And all those who are begotten through me are partakers of the glory of the same, and are the church of the Firstborn.
23 Ye were also in the beginning with the Father; that which is Spirit, even the Spirit of truth;
24 And truth is knowledge of things as they are, and as they were, and as they are to come;
25 And whatsoever is more or less than this is the spirit of that wicked one who was a liar from the beginning.
26 The Spirit of truth is of God. I am the Spirit of truth, and John bore record of me, saying: He received a fulness of truth, yea, even of all truth;
27 And no man receiveth a fulness unless he keepeth his commandments.
28 He that keepeth his commandments receiveth truth and light, until he is glorified in truth and knoweth all things.
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.
30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.
The key verse is verse 29. Clearly, Mormons believe that humans are, at least in some sense, eternal and not created by God – at least, not out of nothing.
Combine this with D&C 93:33-36:
33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;
34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.
35 The elements are the tabernacle of God; yea, man is the tabernacle of God, even temples; and whatsoever temple is defiled, God shall destroy that temple.
36 The glory of God is intelligence, or, in other words, light and truth.
Verse 33 makes it plain that all matter has an eternal and uncreated element. So not only are we uncreated, but so is the universe.
Joseph Smith further explained this idea that Mormons do not read Genesis chapter 1 as God creating out of nothing. The Hebrew word for “create” in that passage is “bara” which can be translated as “create,” but can also be translated as “divide” or cut (which implies existing material). So the Mormon reading of “create” in Genesis is in the same sense an artist creates – working with preexisting matter, not conjuring stuff out of nothing.
I think this is probably the most central divide between Mormons and other Christians. All other disputes proceed from that central disagreement – whether it is acknowledged or not. Always keep this central issue in mind when dealing with Mormon doctrine or theology.
Hope that’s helpful.
Alma, thanks for the clarifications–it seems we agree on more than I at first thought. Still, I think it’s a stretch to say that salvation does more than restore us to our pre-Fall likeness of God…but then again, I understand “likeness” in Genesis to be more than physical. The only change that I see salvation making in that original state is that eventually we will be unable to sin. Still, I don’t suppose that question is central to our discussion. It all started in “who is Jesus, exactly?”
Seth, thanks for joining the discussion, and I hope you can stick around for a while. I think your perspective helps us understand a bit of where I was confused before–most Mormons I’ve met would agree that Jesus was once a man and became God. Alma does not, but you lean that way, confirming that I’m not just crazy and imagining what people have told me in the past.
I do have one point of discussion for you, Seth. You said,
First of all, what is your take on the Christian doctrine of the Trinity? From a trinitarian perspective, there is no such thing as “independent divinity,” even for Jesus. I’m sure that’s obvious from the concept of the Trinity, but I just thought I’d throw it out there since you used that phrase.
Secondly, could you briefly support how you find it consistent with Scripture that, if I may paraphrase, Jesus was once not God and later became God, and that He has some sort of derivative divinity from the Father? Thanks.
Also, I’m not just asking the questions here–if you want to come back and ask me to support anything, feel free. I’m sure that goes for anyone on these blogs, as well.
Jeffrey,
I don’t want to step on Seth’s comment, but I suspect there may still be some misunderstanding here. When he suggested that he leans towards Jesus having become God, I don’t think he’s proposing that it came about after Christ became a man. Mormonism posits a pre-mortal life for all of us, including Christ. While I have taken the position that nothing in scripture posits a time when Christ was not God, the possibility exists that he became God before he became a man, not after.
Seth, I disagree that “this is where we get the concept of “intelligences” as the term defining the most basic beginning state of human existence.” I think that is a conclusion formulated by B. H. Roberts and adopted freely by many LDS people; but that it ignores the dictionary definition of intelligence as a spirit, and the fact that the First Presidency has taught that the terms spirit and intelligence are synonymous (see Messages of F.P. 5:26).
Gentlemen, I am very thankful to God that He is bringing this conversation about. I am confident that those who read this blog will see a level of grace and passion to know the truth that isn’t often realized between “rival” systems of belief.
Seth, I appreciate your honesty when you said, “I am agnostic on the question if God the Father was ever anything less than God.” I am curious if this level of divergence is truly possible within the LDS hierarchy? I have a hard time understanding how you (under a system that employs the twin revelation of book and prophet) can you be “Mormon” and make such an indefinite statement on such a central issue to the faith?
As a matter of fact, you even warned Alma in your previous entry that people should adhere to the theology of Joseph Smith’s King Follett Discourse; “I think Mormons who try to marginalize, or wave away this speech are on pretty shaky ground.” However, you seem to question, the Prophet, Joseph Smith when he says,
Thanks in advance for clarifying this seeming contradiction for me.
That’s a good observation, Dan. While I have (I believe) indicated that I believe Joseph Smith’s statements in this discourse are true, I have also noted that LDS people aren’t required to accept them unless canonized.
Sandra, you asked:
Seeing that you don’t feel easily pelted, I’d love to stand in line for an answer too. Dan posted elsewhere the discomfiting notion that when one encounters someone with a belief system that is fundamentally different from one’s own, chances are that one of you is wrong.
At least one of us, if not both.
I assume you grew up with LDS, seeing that your parents named you after a prophet. Have you ever considered the notion that you may be wrong?
Certainly I have considered that I might be wrong. Everyone must find out for himself what is true. Most Mormon young men are expected to take two years when they turn 19 as full time missionaries. I remember thinking that I wasn’t about to do that unless I had a firm conviction that what I would be preaching was true. My youngest son didn’t make that decision until he was 20 (and returned last week from his mission in Atlanta, Georgia.)
I think a large part of this can be understood better when we understand how God establishes spiritual truth. The strength of Peter’s, Paul’s and the other prophets and apostles positions was not in their ability to interpret the Bible. It was that they were eye witnesses and ear witnesses who had seen and heard these things and had been instructed by God. They didn’t say, “Jesus was resurrected because Ezekiel and Isaiah prophesied of the resurrection, and we therefore can conclude that Jesus was resurrected.” Instead, they said, “I saw the resurrected Lord. I ate with him. He stayed beside me for an entire night. I know that the resurrection is real and that’s why Ezekiel and Isaiah and the other prophets were right.” The strength of their position did not come from conclusions they had decided on based on a particular interpretation. It came from knowledge that had been revealed to them by God.
God showed things to witnesses who could thereafter testify about what they knew. I’m sure the people who accepted the testimony of the apostles occasionally considered the notion that they might be wrong.
How do you deal with that? Do you come to a place where you are 100% sure of the veracity of your beliefs?
If that were the case it wouldn’t be faith anymore.
If so, how do you keep an open mind?
I believe in having an open mind; but not so open that my brains fall out. I keep an open mind on lots of things, but others are settled to the extent that I don’t even consider them as valid.
What do you suggest would happen with your position before God if, just hypothetically, you should be mistaken?
When I have considered other theologies, I have thought that I’m in the best possible circumstance. If we were to hypothetically consider some of those others against my own this is how I see it. In Mormonism, in order to be saved, I need to have faith in Jesus Christ, repent of my sins, be baptized by someone who has proper authority, receive the gift of the Holy Spirit and make continue faithful till death.
Some Christians have told me that all I need to do to be saved is confess the Lord with my mouth and believe in my heart that God raised him from the dead. When I have replied that I have done that, they often revise the formula to also include other elements which indicates that they believe I’m not saved by faith through grace, but by faith, through grace and correct doctrine. If they’re right that you have to believe correct doctrine as well, it’s anybody’s guess who has the correct doctrine and how to know it.
I’ve considered Calvinism, but it seems to me that whatever I decide, I haven’t really decided and if God has elected me I’ll be saved even if I am a Mormon. If God hasn’t elected me, then it doesn’t matter if I’m a Mormon or a Methodist or even a Calvinist.
I’m only in real trouble if Catholics have a corner on the market. While they accept the baptisms of other non-Catholic Christians, they have specifically excluded Mormons. That doesn’t bother me, though, because we excluded them first…
Alma
Hey Dan,
I am ambiguous on the subject. But that doesn’t bug me much. I prefer my theology open-ended.
I like Joseph’s King Follett sermon. But that doesn’t mean I’m comfortable dogmatizing every aspect of it without clarification. The unfortunate fact is that Joseph died shortly after giving that sermon, so we aren’t exactly clear on some of the theological particulars of the language he used. Joseph was an uneducated man and not a trained theologian. He did not have the careful technical language of today’s theologians. I have one Mormon friend who is of the opinion that Joseph’s sermon did not really mean that God the Father was ever not divine. He believes that, based on the contextual reading of everything Joseph said in that particular passage, what Joseph meant is that God was once a man in the same way Jesus was – the idea being that he was once a “Savior” and laid down his own life for others… based off of Joseph Smith’s argument from John 5:19, 26 and John 10:18 (Joseph seemed to be of the opinion that Jesus, in his mortal ministry, was simply imitating what his Father had done before).
But my friend argues that nowhere does this idea that Jesus is imitating the Father, or that the Father was ever mortal in the same way Jesus was mean that the Father was ever anything less than divine.
I don’t know… I’m not convinced. But I can see a scriptural argument to be made there, and an argument to be made from Joseph’s sermon. Joseph never lived to clarify himself, so we remain very-much in the realm of speculation on this topic.
Yes, it is very possible for fully believing Mormons to have very different opinions on this topic.
I agree with you that this topic is “fundamental.” The nature of God! What could be more fundamental than that? But I would ask you – fundamental for what?
Membership in the Church? Salvation? Correct interpretation of scripture?
I would argue that full knowledge of God is NOT required for salvation. Otherwise almost none could be saved. I’ve met very few Christians who could really explain the Trinity to me. Does their ignorance preclude them from laying hold of Christ’s Atonement unto salvation?
How many Christians died in mud huts in medieval Europe without ever really understanding what their pastor or priest was saying? Does everyone you know at church really understand what God is like in a way that is theologically correct.
My grandmother, a devout Methodist and pillar of her congregation, believed that God has a physical body.
Would this “fundamental” mistake (as her minister would no-doubt term it) preclude her from salvation?
No, I do not think that orthodoxy is always necessary for salvation. Otherwise, few indeed could be saved. In fact, you’d need a graduate degree in theology before you could even come close to being “saved.” I feel God is more generous than that. He allows people to seek after Him and to live and die at all stages of searching for Him with full assurance of salvation through His son’s infinite sacrifice.
Should we make agreement on so fundamental a question as the character of God a pre-requisite for membership in a church?
Again, I would say no.
The whole need no physician, but those who are sick. Those who have full and correct knowledge of God need no sermon, but those who are ignorant or uninformed. Church is a hospital – a place where we come to be made whole. I would never deny a place in my congregation for a person simply because he didn’t fully understand the nature of God. We are all learning line-upon-line about God. Both as individuals, as faith communities, and as a human family. I will not presume to exclude people simply because of heterodox views on the subject. I think it is well and appropriate that people like me and Alma should be allowed to disagree within the LDS faith, and yet still sit next to each other and take of the same sacramental bread each Sunday.
There is but one touchstone of LDS Church membership – are you willing to make and keep sacred covenants with God? As long as Alma is so willing, he is welcome in my religion in full fellowship and I’m sure he feels the same about me.
Orthodoxy is not the primary guiding light of Mormonism. Not to say it’s unimportant or irrelevant, but it does not serve a gatekeeping function in our religion like it does in some Christian congregations. Mormons can actually be very easy-going about diversity of doctrinal beliefs within a congregation, so long as they are not disruptive to the worship of others.
If there is anywhere that Mormons are inflexible, it would be on performance of correct ordinances and on keeping covenants with God. Theological divergence is generally tolerated I’ve found.
Seth, thanks for the thoughtful answer. I agree that there are “levels” of knowledge and that they are different for all people. It is simply a reality of life. This brings me to another series of questions. Would you not say there is a huge difference between the person who carefully investigates a faith-claim and then rejects it and the person who is indifferent to a particular doctrine due to various reasons (immaturity, culture, etc.)? In other words, would the Apostle Judas would be held more responsible for his rejection of Christ than, say, a non-Christian who lived in the rural plains of Georgia?
If this is true (I am betting you will agree with the basic premise), are there not fundamental aspects of the Christian faith that every person must believe in order to truly be able to claim to be a follower of Christ, accepted by God? These issues would be definitional to following Christ and, therefore, transcend spiritual maturity, culture, etc.
In your opinion, what would those particular things be?
I agree with the basic premise that there is a difference between those who are accountable and those who are not (for instance, Judas is obviously more culpable than the ignorant peasant). But as a practical matter, I think the dividing line between the two is not always clear.
For instance, how do you determine when someone has “willfully rejected” based on full knowledge? How can you know the person had sufficient knowledge for such status? For example, I encounter ex-Mormons who left the faith because of a bad experience with a bishop, or friends at Church. But how do I know whether they left the Church with full knowledge of the “Restored Gospel” (as we call it) or not? Even those informed of true Christianity can be influenced by the broader culture, blinded by the deceptions of other people, and confused by family background.
It makes me think this is more a matter of gradual degrees than absolutely one type or the other.
God will, of course, hold each of us accountable for whatever light and knowledge we possess.
Now, what do I consider to be fundamental to “Christianity?”
I do have a few items. They are probably broader than the definitions some here may have but…
1. Belief in and worship of one divine entity – whether that entity be one substance or three substances acting as one. I will not exclude someone from the “Christian” designation for the supposed heresies of modalism or tri-theism. Nor subordinationism. Subscribing to these views may make you misguided or mistaken. But it doesn’t boot you from the club.
2. Belief in an unbridgeable chasm between humanity and God. Whether you believe this divide is one of kind or merely of vast degree is not of concern for this topic. It is enough merely to believe that we cannot bridge the divide on our own.
3. Belief in the necessity of Jesus sacrifice to bridge that gulf.
4. Belief in the possibility of an ultimate reconciliation with God and happy hereafter.
That’s it. That’s all you need to believe, and you’re a Christian as far as I’m concerned. You may hold secondary beliefs that are incoherent, or even ultimately contradictory to the above four premises (for instance, many Evangelicals claim that Mormons’ beliefs in Christ do not provide a Christ sufficiently divine to enact a sufficient Atonement). But that does not matter as far as your identity as a “Christian.” It may make you a mistaken Christian, it may make you an incoherent Christian, it may make you even a heretical Christian – but Christian nonetheless. And it puts you on the path to God at least.
To be a Mormon, I would say you need to believe the above four premises, and in addition:
5. A belief in an Apostasy such that modern restoration of God’s truths was necessary.
6. A belief that Joseph Smith was instrumental in that restoration (and the books of scripture he brought forth).
And you’re a “Mormon.”
(Yes, I am aware this also includes the FLDS in Texas and I’m OK with that. However misguided they may be, I still view them as “Mormons.”)
I’m struck by something in your last comment, Seth. I’m teaching a class on “Gospel Conversations” here at Grace, and I’ve been using four questions to clarify the Gospel. They seem to intersect nicely with your definition of “Christian:”
1. What is the nature of God?
2. What is the nature of man?
3. What is the nature of sin?
4. What is the nature of Christ?
I’m fascinated by the resemblance, but I fear that Mormons and Christians will give widely divergent answers to each of those questions. But rather than focus on the individual differences, I’d like to ask just one question that sort of synthesizes the whole thing…
What is the nature of salvation? That is, how do the natures of God, man, sin, and Christ fit together to achieve reconciliation between God and man?
Alma, would you agree with Seth’s assessment of what a person must believe in order to be a Christian and also a Mormon?
Hugh, those are all important questions – fundamental even. And obviously Mormons and other Christians are going to differ on the answers. But you’ll note that I left my own parameters deliberately broad (self-servingly perhaps).
The question you left off with is really complex though, and I honestly don’t feel equal to giving a very comprehensible answer. Happy to discuss particulars though.
Yeah, sorry, it’s kind of a whopper. We should probably zoom in on one piece of the puzzle to really have any sort of fruitful conversation.
Like the mosquito in the nudist colony, I find myself asking, “where do I start?” 🙂
Let’s try this: you offered four points that make someone “Christian” and they all focus on belief. You also said (my paraphrase) that people could be confused on these points and still be a Christian.
That seems to be a contradiction: in the first place, right belief is essential; in the second, right belief is nonessential — presumably something else is essential, but I’m not sure you said what that might be.
So on the question of “what makes a Christian,” how do you reconcile those two positions?
I hope you don’t mind me jumping in with a simple question. I have been hearing a lot of “I believe” without more basis of scripture for an argument. Wouldn’t we all agree that Paul’s ministry was based on the Scriptures,(and that we know Christ died, rose again, according to the scriptures)?
Please hear me in the humblest of tones…really, I’m very sincere.
It seems to me that throughout scripture God told us of the coming Messiah. Starting in Genesis 3:15 “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed (Christ, and those in Him).”
We had Prophets that warned Israel to repent, of coming destruction, and future deliverance (again of a coming Messiah). Then we had Jesus, the one God said would come to save His people from their sins. The recordings after that in the Bible are from the eye witnesses, as you said Alma. Paul (one of the witnesses) mentions his calling in Romans 1:1-6, to be an apostle for the Gospel of Christ-The Gospel talked about by the prophets. He also says in that passage that Jesus was born of flesh and declared to be the son of God (Identifying Him as the same essence as God).
My question is this. What convinces you that Joseph Smith’s writings are legit? Is it based on His own experiences? There seems to be no message from God, (That I can see, I may be wrong) in the Scriptures, that say another man is coming to give you more revelation. In fact, what I do see is a warning to those that may come in the future to deceive the people that have the Truth of the Gospel already. 2 John 1:7, and Galations 1:8.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, that a man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Why would that be written if there was more revelation we would need to further our Truth of the Gospel or Godly living? It seems to me if I were to error, I would choose to error on the side of the Scriptures alone.
That, of course, is separate from experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit in my life.
Dan, you asked if I agree with Seth’s assessment of what a person must believe in order to be a Christian and also a Mormon.
I can’t agree at all with Seth’s assessment—for several reasons. The first problem is definitional. As I understand it, when most orthodox Christians talk about who is Christian and who is not, they are referring to who is saved and who is not. I really doubt that Seth had any intention of implying that those he classified as Christians or Mormons were saved. If he did, my disagreement goes even deeper.
Mormons don’t perceive that salvation is a result of belief, but rather of behavior. Consequently, we’re willing to classify anyone who claims to believe in Jesus Christ as a Christian. On the other hand, most orthodox Christians are reluctant to classify Mormons as Christians because their definition of a Christian is someone who is saved.
On the day of Pentecost, those who heard Peter preach, asked the apostles: “What shall we do?” Peter didn’t ask them if they believed in “one divine entity” or in an “unbridgeable chasm.” He told them to repent and be baptized. There was no belief formula required for entrance among the saved—it was, rather, a behavior formula, resulting from their belief that they were sinners and needed to be saved; and that Jesus Christ was the means of that salvation.
From a Mormon perspective, anyone who professes that Jesus Christ is the means of salvation is a Christian. In order to be a Mormon, however, one must also act upon the belief that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, restored the Church of Jesus Christ in 1830; and be baptized into the LDS Church.
Seth’s claim that the term “Mormon” also includes FLDS people directly contradicts the statement of our prophet who stated, “There is no such thing as a “Mormon Fundamentalist.”
Essentially, I would say that there is no correlation between what you believe and whether or not you are a Mormon; it is entirely associated with personal behavior rather than belief.
I would also assert that salvation is not dependent upon believing “correct doctrine” but rather upon having true faith. For example, I believe someone could be saved by the blood of Christ if he did not understand the true doctrine of the Trinity or even if he had a false concept of it.
“I would also assert that salvation is not dependent upon believing “correct doctrine” but rather upon having true faith. For example, I believe someone could be saved by the blood of Christ if he did not understand the true doctrine of the Trinity or even if he had a false concept of it.”
Just curious…Would you consider me saved if I didn’t believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, but Christ was my means of salvation? I understand that doesn’t make me a Mormon, but saved in your belief? Because if that is true to you, than I’m still alright as far as being on the right track.
Vicki asked, I hope you don’t mind me jumping in with a simple question. I have been hearing a lot of “I believe” without more basis of scripture for an argument.
I don’t mind you jumping in at all. I imagine that I haven’t included more scripture in what I’ve written because I’ve been writing about what “I believe” rather than “why I believe.” I also assume that people in the discussion already have a familiarity with scripture and citing passages might make the messages too long to read. I’ll try to include more direct scripture references in the future.
Wouldn’t we all agree that Paul’s ministry was based on the Scripture…
Yes, if by “based on” you mean “consistent with.”
…and declared to be the son of God (Identifying Him as the same essence as God).
I’m not sure I follow your last conclusion. I understand the scriptures that “declare Christ to be the Son of God” aren’t referencing “essence” but rather “paternity.”
My question is this. What convinces you that Joseph Smith’s writings are legit? Is it based on His own experiences?
No, it’s based on my experiences. There are several elements in the equation that convince me that Joseph Smith was a true prophet.
1) Jesus said to beware of false prophets. He then said, “Ye shall know them by their fruits.” The only reason to give us a “how to know them” would be to distinguish the true from false. “…A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.” (Matt. 7:16,18).
The fruit that Joseph Smith produced is The Book of Mormon. A careful examination of it will demonstrate that it is a good fruit. John said not to believe all spirits but to try them whether they are of God. (1 John 4:1) He then told how to know if it is of the Spirit of God: “Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God.” (vs. 2) The purpose of The Book of Mormon is to demonstrate that Jesus is the Christ, The Eternal God and that He did in fact come in the flesh.
2) Jesus said, “Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.” (Matt. 7:7-8) The Book of Mormon likewise promises that God will answer those who ask Him if it is true: “And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.”
I put that promise to the test almost 40 years ago and since that time have confidently told others that they can have the same experience.
3) Joseph Smith made another observation that has guided me in answering this question as well. He wanted to know which Church to join and got conflicting claims from various people about how to interpret the Bible. He wrote, “the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible.”
Someone else’s interpretation of the Bible is no better than mine or any one else’s without revelation. I prefer to find someone who can speak as did the apostles of old—with knowledge rather than supposition. I know lots of people who disagree with Joseph Smith’s teachings, but none who claim any better knowledge than their own private interpretation. (2 Peter 1:20)I think it’s wiser to follow someone who claims to know that someone who has concluded what he thinks is best.
There seems to be no message from God, (That I can see, I may be wrong) in the Scriptures, that say another man is coming to give you more revelation.
Revelation 11:3 says, “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” The account goes on to say that they will be killed—demonstrating that these future prophets are indeed, men.
In fact, what I do see is a warning to those that may come in the future to deceive the people that have the Truth of the Gospel already. 2 John 1:7, and Galations 1:8.
You’re approaching that from the premise that what Mormons have is “another gospel” rather than the one preached by the apostles. I would say that it is not another gospel, but the same gospel—as defined by Paul: “For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve. (1 Cor. 15:3-5). Compare that to how LDS scripture defines the gospel and you’ll find they are the same. Joseph Smith claimed that “the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.”
2 Timothy 3:16 says, All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in righteousness, that a man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. Why would that be written if there was more revelation we would need to further our Truth of the Gospel or Godly living?
Do you think that when Paul wrote about “all scripture” that he meant to include the gospel of John? The book of Revelation? Those scriptures were written after this epistle of Paul. I would imagine that your answer is yes, “all scripture” means “all scripture.” If that is the case, there was more revelation to be written after 2 Timothy 3:16. Who is to say that “all scripture” does not include The Book of Mormon and the future prophecies of Revelation 11:3?
It seems to me if I were to err, I would choose to err on the side of the Scriptures alone. That, of course, is separate from experiencing the work of the Holy Spirit in my life.
I think that is appropriate, but how do you determine what is and what is not Scripture? What would have been the correct action of a Christian living in Rome about 105 A.D. who had a copy of Paul’s epistle to Timothy and was presented with the gospel of John, written in the past 15 years? If he interpreted 2 Tim. 3:16 as indicating an end to scripture, would he be justified in excluding the gospel of John?
Alma
Vicki, you asked, “Would you consider me saved if I didn’t believe that Joseph Smith was a prophet of God, but Christ was my means of salvation? I understand that doesn’t make me a Mormon, but saved in your belief? Because if that is true to you, than I’m still all right as far as being on the right track.
No, it doesn’t make you saved in my belief. In order to be saved, you also need to be baptized by one having authority from God and receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. You’re at a very good first step and on the right track, but it’s also necessary to accept those whom God sends as his messengers. “He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me.” (Matt. 10:40)
I apologize for not having replied sooner, and I’m still trying to figure out a good way to format my replies.
Alma
“I think that is appropriate, but how do you determine what is and what is not Scripture? What would have been the correct action of a Christian living in Rome about 105 A.D. who had a copy of Paul’s epistle to Timothy and was presented with the gospel of John, written in the past 15 years? If he interpreted 2 Tim. 3:16 as indicating an end to scripture, would he be justified in excluding the gospel of John?”
I would give John more authority over Joseph Smith, being that he knew Christ. I concur that evidence from the Bible concludes that we don’t need a new revelation as much as we need to spread the news of the Gospel. Also, that Scripture was fulfilled in Christ and He is coming back for us.
Thank you so much for taking the time to answer my questions. I still have some more, but first I was just able to have a chance to visit your site. I noticed on your profile that your favorite bloggers give their horoscope sign. Are you into astrology?
In fact I followed another lead that lead me to a favorit blogger, 34 years old, female that is into witchcraft and paganism. How does that work when attached to your profile? Are these people you read daily?
Vicki,
Your last questions really surprised me. I didn’t know that there was a place on my blog for my favorite bloggers, particularly those who were interested in astrology. It took me a few minutes to figure out, but I think this is how it works. When you have a blog with blogspot, you write what your interests are, and your sign, then blogspot links people with the same interests. I clicked on one of my interests and found there were 62,500 people with the same interest. I don’t know any of them (that I could tell) and have never read their blogs. They’re just linked to me by the server.
My own sign doesn’t show up because I think astrology is bogus and I didn’t fill out that part.
As to accepting the gospel of John, you explained that you would do so because John “knew Christ.” If you found that Joseph Smith “knew Christ” just as Paul knew Him, wouldn’t that make him just as capable of writing valid scripture as Paul?
I’m not sure I understand part of your comments to me. Perhaps you did what I did on previous messages. I started a sentence, then changed half of it and neglected to delete
the first part. You wrote, “I strongly conquer that evidence from the Bible concludes that we don’t need a new revelation…” I don’t think the Bible suggests anywhere an end to revelation. I believe it cautions against tampering with the text and unauthorized additions, but always allows for God to send more information.
Sometimes people interpret the Bible as though it refers to itself as a completed work–all 66 books of the Protestant Bible that came out of the Reformation. The Christian Church of Acts had apostles and prophets and no defined canon. The Church added and subtracted authorized scripture for hundreds of years; yet not one prophet or apostle specified what should be included in “The Bible.” Bible authors refer to non-biblical works as prophecy. (Jude 1:14)Christians of 300 A.D. rejected books that you accept and accepted books that you reject. How do you know that your canon is what God would like you to have?
I am so sorry to keep going with this, but it is consuming me to a point of needing to speak.
You said… “The fruit that Joseph Smith produced is The Book of Mormon. A careful examination of it will demonstrate that it is a good fruit.”
You’re approaching that from the premise that what Mormons have is “another gospel” rather than the one preached by the Apostles. I would say that it is not another gospel, but the same gospel”
If works are a part of your salvation process than are you not adding to the Gospel message of Christ alone, through faith alone? (Romans 3:23-28).
You said…”Revelation 11:3 says, “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” The account goes on to say that they will be killed—demonstrating that these future prophets are indeed, men.
I don’t believe that passage is specific that the witnesses are men. Also, did Joseph Smith wear sackcloth and was he killed in the middle east and come back to life? They also performed great miracles to show their authority. What miracles did Joseph Smith perform to validate his role as a prophet? Also, these prophets came to warn of a coming judgment not to give a new revelation.
You said…”Book of Mormon likewise promises that God will answer those who ask Him if it is true.”
Why would it need to say that? The Bible is written from a perspective that it is confident that it is true. The Bible doesn’t bow to the feelings or impressions of the reader. Does the Bible ever give this type of recipe for being led? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong. Doesn’t it seem like that prayer is like asking me to feel if 2 plus 2 is 4 or there maybe a chance 2 plus 2 may equals 5 depending on my feelings. I know this may sound harsh. But it flows from a concern for you. I truly am not a harsh person, just passionate about God, the Bible and truth as I know you are as well.
After everything I’ve read, it still seems to me that I am saved in the eyes of Mormonism, just still in my first steps. However, I believe you may be following a different Jesus and, therefore, a different God. I hope you will consider this and realize that only one of us can right and I think you are mistaken in your hope that, ultimately, depends on Joseph Smith.
Alma,
Thank you so much for conversing with me. I really wish it were in person, with my husband of course. I feel that blog posting can make one appear as being malicious when a person is just typing and sending a point. It seems so short, to the point and a bit curt to me. So, I apologize if I came across as being too direct. It appears that I posted my second point around the same time you replied and I have just now had the chance to read your reply.
Thank you so much for answering my blog question as to your blog. I’m still learning what tags mean, and I sincerely apologize if I insulted you by asking the question concerning astrology. I was just curious as to why the taggs were there.
I do appreciate your knowledge of the history of the Mormon church. I think both of us (and others posting here) have a desire to seek truth; otherwise we would not be bouncing back thoughts to each other. Personally, I do hold to the position that the Bible is complete. Practically, I take this to mean that the Scriptures (66 books in the Bible) are all I need for life and godliness. I am confident that it is sufficient for me to use to build up myself and others in the Lord; The Scriptures are the grid for spiritual development is regard to what we need, what is truth.
I am going to retreat from this blog now, but graciously thank you for your time and effort.
I am so sorry to keep going with this, but it is consuming me to a point of needing to speak.
You don’t need to apologize. I’m happy to continue to communicate with you.
You said… “The fruit that Joseph Smith produced is The Book of Mormon. A careful examination of it will demonstrate that it is a good fruit.” If works are a part of your salvation process than are you not adding to the Gospel message of Christ alone, through faith alone? (Romans 3:23-28).
I think you may be compounding two concepts together: the means of salvation and the process of salvation– which is another example of why we need revelation. Centuries of debate between Calvinists and Arminians failed to resolve the issue of faith vs. works. Of course salvation is by faith without deeds of the law. There is nothing any person can do to overcome the consequence of the fall. We are dead in sin. No matter how much good you do, you owe an infinite debt which you cannot begin to pay. If you were to serve God with all your might, mind and soul, you would still not have the ability to resurrect yourself or pay for your sins or place God in your debt so that He would have to pay the debt. Every human being is in the same situation. The means of salvation is the atonement of Christ. There is no other means. The process, however, requires obedient believers rather than mere believers. Notice what the author of Hebrews points out: “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him; (Hebrews 5:8-9)
I’m tempted to cite Adam Clarke (a Methodist theologian) at this point because he provides an excellent comment on the necessity of obedience; but in the end, his comments suffer from the same liability as any other Bible expositor who can only explain what he believes to be true. It’s better to hear an unequivocal statement from a prophet who knows: “And after they had been received unto baptism, and were wrought upon and cleansed by the power of the Holy Ghost, they were numbered among the people of the church of Christ; and their names were taken, that they might be remembered and nourished by the good word of God, to keep them in the right way, to keep them continually watchful unto prayer, relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith.” True believers are obedient believers who recognize that they must rely on the merits of Christ alone for salvation.
You said…”Revelation 11:3 says, “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” The account goes on to say that they will be killed—demonstrating that these future prophets are indeed, men.
I don’t believe that passage is specific that the witnesses are men. Also, did Joseph Smith wear sackcloth and was he killed in the middle east and come back to life?
The reason I cited that passage was to demonstrate a principle– not to claim that Joseph Smith was one of those witnesses. You had cited 2 Timothy 3:16 as support that there would be no more revelation. I response was to demonstrate that revelation would continue in the future. If there is going to be extra biblical revelation, that shows that the use of 2 Timothy to demonstrate a cessation of revelation is mistaken.
They also performed great miracles to show their authority. What miracles did Joseph Smith perform to validate his role as a prophet?
I don’t believe he performed any miracles to validate his role as a prophet—except produce the Book of Mormon. Additionally, Jesus taught that signs would follow rather than precede them that believe. (Mark 16:17)
You said…”Book of Mormon likewise promises that God will answer those who ask Him if it is true.” Why would it need to say that?
Because God knew the reception it would be given. People would say, “We already have a Bible and don’t need any more of God’s words.”
The Bible is written from a perspective that it is confident that it is true. The Bible doesn’t bow to the feelings or impressions of the reader.
I don’t know what you mean by saying the Bible doesn’t “bow to the feelings or impressions of the reader.” I think your comments come dangerously close to suggesting that the Bible is possessed of attributes of a living entity. In reality, the Bible never existed in the form in which you have it until well into the 1600’s. Referring to it as a completed collection seems odd to me—particularly in claiming that it considers itself at all. At what point in history do you see the Bible as being completed?
Does the Bible ever give this type of recipe for being led? I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.
Cornelius was a devout man who prayed always. God sent to him an angel who told him where to go to find the truth. Christ told us to “ask, seek, and knock” and promised that those who did so would receive answers. James said if any man lacked wisdom, let him ask of God who giveth to all men liberally , and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.” (James 1:5) It seems to me that the first thing you need is wisdom to know if asking God is a good idea. Try that first and then act on the answer He gives you. I know lots of people who are unwilling to ask because they know they’ll get an answer and they’re more comfortable not knowing.
Doesn’t it seem like that prayer is like asking me to feel if 2 plus 2 is 4 or there may be a chance 2 plus 2 may equals 5 depending on my feelings.
I didn’t say anything about “feelings” and the passage I cited to you didn’t say anything about feelings. It simply said that if you sincerely ask God in faith to manifest the truth of the book to you, He will do so by the power of the Holy Ghost. Jesus said that the Spirit of truth “will guide you into all truth; …and show you things to come.” (John 16:13). How would you expect to be guided into all truth except by the Holy Spirit? I’m not sure your math example holds water. (Too many orthodox Christians have tried to show me that 1+1+1=1.) 🙂
I know this may sound harsh. But it flows from a concern for you. I truly am not a harsh person, just passionate about God, the Bible and truth as I know you are as well. After everything I’ve read, it still seems to me that I am saved in the eyes of Mormonism, just still in my first steps.
Joseph Smith once was asked, “Will everybody be damned, but Mormons?” He replied, “Yes, and a great portion of them, unless they repent, and work righteousness.” You might think Mormonism sees you as saved, but I don’t see how.
However, I believe you may be following a different Jesus and, therefore, a different God.
Yes, I’m familiar with that conclusion but I don’t buy it either. You may think that George Bush is a scoundrel and I may think he is a great guy. The fact that we have different ideas about him does not mean there are two George Bushes–okay, bad example—let me try that again. Catholics believe that Jesus had no siblings and Protestants generally believe He did. Their conflicting views about Christ do not negate the fact that they both look to the same individual for salvation.
Alma
Vicki,
I apologize if I sounded harsh. There is a limitation in discussions such as these, and I regret that it takes me so long to draft a response, and then that response may sound curt or harsh. I haven’t intended that to be the case.
Alma
Hi Alma,
I am not a member of Grace Fellowship but just stumbled across this blog entry and have read through all of the comments. That took a very long time by the way! I was just wondering what your thoughts are on the DNA discrepancies with regard to the Native American’s relation to the Israelites. If the DNA discrepancy is true wouldn’t that jeopardize the validity of the Book of Mormon? Thank you in advance for your gracious offering of your time!
Respectfully,
Jason
Hi Jason,
Congrats on wading through my comments without falling asleep.
My thoughts about alleged discrepancies between native American DNA and claims of the Book of Mormon: Realizing that hundreds of pages have been written addressing this issue; and that an adequate response would take more than three or four sentences, here is a brief comment:
The Book of Mormon claims to be a history of two ancient migrations from Asia to the western hemisphere. It does not claim to chronicle all the ancient inhabitants of the western hemisphere or give their genealogies. It does claim to give a history of about 25 Israelites and their descendants who left Jerusalem 2600 years ago.
Some scientists think that if these 25 people actually arrived in America 2600 years ago, native Americans would have DNA that matches populations of present day Jews. They have tested the mtDNA of some native Americans and some Jews and have not found a connection—concluding that they have proved a negative.
I think that is really bad science and even worse logic. That would be like comparing the DNA of residents of Hong Kong with that of people in England —two thousand years from now–to see if two dozen British citizens emigrated to Hong Kong.
Respectfully,
Alma
Thank you for your reply Alma. Would you say the Mormon scholars interviewed in the below video are misguided in their research (similar to what you write above)? Please pardon my follow up question but I’m just trying to get my arms around this particular issue. The video is fairly lengthy and can get slightly redundant but I found it to be thought provoking. Thank you in advance!
Thank you for your reply Alma. Would you say the Mormon scholars interviewed in the below video are misguided in their research (similar to what you write above)?
It’s been a couple of years since I watched the video (several times), but I wouldn’t call them misguided (or Mormon) as much as naïve and in over their heads. As I noted above, there are hundreds of pages written by competent scientists on this subject. I’d suggest Michael Whiting’s (Ph.D. Cornell) paper, “DNA and the Book of Mormon: A Phylogenetic Perspective” from 2003:
(http://farms.byu.edu/publications/jbms/?vol=12&num=1&id=311
Whiting shows just how ludicrous these DNA claims are.
Please pardon my follow up question but I’m just trying to get my arms around this particular issue. The video is fairly lengthy and can get slightly redundant but I found it to be thought provoking. Thank you in advance!
I don’t mind a follow-up, but I’m still a little concerned about wearing out my welcome here. Although I haven’t been posting regularly at my site, I hope to address this if I have time from my blog tomorrow.
Alma
Hi Everyone,
I have finally read through all the comments, and my head is still spinning a bit. Alma and Seth, if this question has already been answered, please forgive me, but I’m interested in why you believe the testimony of Joseph Smith. My understanding (which is very limited and could be incorrect) is that Jesus appeared to only him with the new information that is the basis for the LDS beliefs. Was there anyone else who witnessed Jesus’ appearing to Smith? Or did Jesus appear to anyone else who could corroborate the new revelation?
In the New Testament, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people after His resurrection. In 1 Corinthians 15, Paul referred to these witnesses as part of his support for Christ’s resurrection. It seems that Christ intended for many to see Him after His resurrection. Why would He not also appear to many at His latter day appearing, if He were intending to give a whole new revelation to His followers?
If there were many other witnesses that I’m unaware of, then my point will be moot. However, if he was the lone witness to the appearing, it seems awfully convenient for only one man to make claims that no one else can corroborate. One would certainly want to make certain that person had a spotless character, which I have heard was not necessarily true of Smith. Please correct me, if my understanding is off.
Thanks!
Alma and Seth, if this question has already been answered, please forgive me, but I’m interested in why you believe the testimony of Joseph Smith.
I think the question has been asked, but probably not answered fully. It seems to me that everyone ultimately has to make a decision on what they will believe and why. If you were to ask yourself why you believe the testimony of Peter, or Paul, or any of the New Testament authors, I would imagine that your answer would be deeper than “because it’s in the Bible.” That would only lead to, “Why do you believe the Bible” which generally ends up being circular logic.
You provide a reason that I think is a good percentage of why I believe the testimony of Joseph Smith: Witnesses. I believe that the way God establishes spiritual truth is he selects witnesses who know and they tell the people of what they know and then the people decide (often at the peril of their salvation) to accept or reject the testimony of the witnesses.
The process clearly involves examining the witnesses to see if they’re reliable or not; and, I think that it’s essential that there be more than one witness to any such claim. “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (2 Cor. 13:1)
My understanding (which is very limited and could be incorrect) is that Jesus appeared to only him with the new information that is the basis for the LDS beliefs.
While Joseph Smith was alone when he said that the Father and Son appeared to him in 1820; that was only the beginning—after which several other witnesses stood with Joseph Smith, to testify that they too were witnesses with him.
In providing new information, here are a couple of instances:
In 1832, Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon both were given a vision about heaven, hell, and the resurrection. Of this event they wrote, “And now, after the many testimonies which have been given of him, this is the testimony, last of all which we give of him: That he lives! For we saw him, even on the right hand of God; and we heard the voice bearing record that he is the Only Begotten of the Father.” (D&C 76:22-23)
At the end of their written description, they include this comment that says that others can have the same experience:
“This is the end of the vision which we saw, which we were commanded to write while we were yet in the Spirit.
“But great and marvelous are the works of the Lord, and the mysteries of his kingdom which he showed unto us, which surpass all understanding in glory, … Which he commanded us we should not write …, and are not lawful for man to utter; Neither is man capable to make them known, for they are only to be seen and understood by the power of the Holy Spirit, which God bestows on those who love him, and purify themselves before him;
“To whom he grants this privilege of seeing and knowing for themselves; That through the power and manifestation of the Spirit, while in the flesh, they may be able to bear his presence in the world of glory.”
Was there anyone else who witnessed Jesus’ appearing to Smith? Or did Jesus appear to anyone else who could corroborate the new revelation?
There were other instances where others besides Joseph Smith saw Jesus and angels.
In the New Testament, Jesus appeared to hundreds of people after His resurrection.
That is true; but it’s important to remember that we don’t have the testimony of hundreds of people, only the testimony of about 5 or 6 people regarding what occurred. “Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly; Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.”
It seems that Christ intended for many to see Him after His resurrection. Why would He not also appear to many at His latter day appearing, if He were intending to give a whole new revelation to His followers?
I think he works the same way today; manifesting himself to witnesses and giving them the charge to carry that witness to others. The Christians in Rome, Corinth, Antioch, Thessalonica, and other places were expected to have faith and believe the witness of those who came among them.
If there were many other witnesses that I’m unaware of, then my point will be moot.
I don’t believe there were as many as at Jerusalem, but I believe there have been enough to establish it as valid.
However, if he was the lone witness to the appearing, it seems awfully convenient for only one man to make claims that no one else can corroborate.
And I think you would all be on solid ground to reject that lone witness if that were the case.
One would certainly want to make certain that person had a spotless character, which I have heard was not necessarily true of Smith. Please correct me, if my understanding is off.
I think it all depends on whom you talk to — – which is to be expected. “If they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household?” (Matt. 10:25) Associates of Joseph Smith reported that he was a good man, willing to forgive others and honest and dedicated. His detractors said he was a scoundrel, dishonest, and lazy. While I think that several of those latter claims don’t hold up to scrutiny (he published and edited several volumes of scripture, three newspapers, oversaw the construction of two temples, two cities and a missionary labor gathering in tens of thousands of converts—all in the space of 14 years– not the result of someone who is lazy).
I think it’s also dangerous to look for someone who is “spotless.” Only Jesus was qualifies when it comes to being spotless. Moses was a murderer, Paul persecuted the Church, Peter denied Jesus-3 times, and Abraham lied about his wife. All of these people I classify as holy prophets-made so by the blood of the Lamb.
Ultimately, I think it’s wise to follow the example of the Bereans, who searched the scriptures to see if these things were so—and add to that Paul’s counsel to “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.” (1 Thess. 5:21)
Alma
First point of clarification – Jesus did not appear to Joseph Smith with all that much technical doctrine.
There were really two take-home messages from that vision:
1. God the Father and Jesus Christ are two separate beings with actual physical forms.
2. The true Church had been lost to the earth and needed to be restored.
After that, there was the Book of Mormon, which was witnessed by many different people. Emma, Joseph’s wife was a primary witness to the translation process of the Book of Mormon, as were Oliver Cowdery and Martin Harris.
Thing is, I have a feeling I know what you are getting at.
Mormonism doesn’t have objective witnesses, but the Bible does.
Am I correct?
I don’t think that conclusion is true at all. The Bible does not have objective evidence that it particularly convincing for ANY of its SPIRITUAL claims. Sure, you can prove that there was a place called Jerusalem. Sure you can prove the existence of people like King David, and Jesus. But can you prove that Jesus walked on water? Can you prove any of his miracles at all?
And even if you can prove Jesus did rise from the dead and float up into the sky, does that prove he was the Son of God?
It does not.
Only people who do not really understand Biblical scholarship think that anything about the Bible’s faith claims has actually been proven. The book is very much in doubt as far as objective scholarship is concerned. On those grounds the Book of Mormon and the Bible are equally credible or incredible.
So I just don’t think it’s appropriate for a believer in the Bible to fault the Book of Mormon on grounds of objective proof. It shows a lack of self-awareness. In short, people in glass houses would do well not to throw rocks.
Now, why do I believe in the teachings of Joseph Smith?
No reason other than the sheer power and majesty inherent in his teachings. The man was audacious, bold, and showed a certain genius for tackling the core theological issues of our time and winning, despite a woefully inadequate education and social background. The way Joseph could cut through centuries of theological argument and bloviating with crude, simple, and commonsense statements was literally breathtaking. People don’t take Joseph seriously, because his rhetoric doesn’t sound sufficiently sophisticated. They write him off as another ignorant hick with an inflated opinion of himself.
What they don’t get, is that the underlying theology behind Joseph’s statements is not trivial. It is powerfully direct and potent. And it seriously challenges and undermines the best that the likes of Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, and Karl Barth have come up with. Joseph provided a powerful theological framework that in the past couple decades, Mormon scholars have only just started to appreciate. I’ve seen Mormon theologians go toe to toe with the best traditional Christianity has to offer, and not only give a good account of themselves, but often seriously challenge and undermine traditional Christian assumptions about the Bible, God, and the Universe.
Some of the best apologists in the Christian world, such as William Lane Craig have been met and countered by Mormon apologists.
LDS doctrines of theosis, social trinity, covenant salvation, the eternal nature of gender and family relationships, and the radical humanity of God are powerful and magnificent doctrines.
Usually, our Evangelical critics completely miss the boat here. They content themselves to playing historical detective – looking for weakness of contradiction in Joseph Smith’s life or record.
They are wasting their time.
Simply put, it doesn’t matter one jot whether you can prove Joseph Smith lied, or wanted to deceive his followers. It is utterly irrelevant and trivial.
What matters is whether what he preached is true or not.
That is the only thing that matters.
I don’t care if the man was a horrible pathological liar. What I care about is whether the doctrine is true or not. Nothing else.
In my mind, the vast majority of Christian apologetic work against Mormonism amounts to one massive misguided ad hominem project. Most of the Christian apologetics movement assumes that if you can discredit Joseph Smith, the whole movement falls apart.
Not even close.
This religion is not, and never has been founded on Joseph Smith. It is founded on the DOCTRINES he brought to light. Which our Evangelical critics, never, repeat NEVER, seem to want to address.
Take the Book of Abraham. Traditional Christian criticism of that book of scripture almost ALL focuses on how the translation process was obviously flawed and fraudulent.
Mormon scholars do not concern themselves with this approach. They’ve moved on to other things and the question of whether Joseph got the correct Egyptian translation or not is really quite beside the point, and frankly, boring. What they have done is move beyond the translator and confronted the ACTUAL TEXT and what it says.
And what they have found is that the Book of Abraham is absolutely laced, littered, CRAWLING with material that mirrors or matches other ancient Jewish documents about the character of Abraham. The book finds parallels in so much of recently discovered Jewish apocryphal tradition about Abraham that it is positively uncanny. Did I mention that none of these sources were discovered until long after Joseph’s death?
Our Christian critics have this obsession with the methodology of Joseph Smith. Was he a fraud? Was he a liar? Was the papyrus he translated from legit?
My response is – who cares?! Who cares how he got it? What I care about is the end product – the results. And the results are magnificent.
So that’s my answer as to why I believe in Joseph Smith. I believe in his results. I believe in the books he wrote and I don’t give two straws about how he wrote them. What is there is potent stuff – on its own merits alone.
This talk of witnesses and proof is really beside the point. When you encounter the true word of God with an open heart, your soul shouts out in reply to it. It is like a breath of fresh air, sweet nectar, like coming home. It resonates, it rings true, and every human soul has the ability to access its truth if they will not close themselves off from it.
A quote from Mormon scholar Hugh Nibley seems relevant:
“You cannot prove the genuineness of any document to one who has decided not to accept it. The scribes and Prarisees of old constantly asked Jesus for proof, and when it was set before them in overwhelming abundance they continued to disbelieve: “O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” (Matt. 16:3). When a man asks for proof we can be pretty sure that proof is the last thing in the world he really wants. His request is thrown out as a challenge, and the chances are that he has no intention of being shown up. After all these years the Bible itself is still not proven to those who do not choose to believe it, and the eminent Harry Terczyner now declares that the main problem of Bible study today is to determine whether or not “the Biblical speeches, songs and laws are forgeries.” So the Book of Mormon as an “unproven” book finds itself in good company.”
Hugh Nibley, “An Approach to the Book of Mormon”, pg. 2
What assurance do I have of the truth of the Restored Gospel?
Only its own merits. Nothing more.
I’ve missed a lot of the earlier conversation here while on vacation (and busy catching up at work afterwards). But it’s a good discussion, and I do want to give some response later. Sorry.
Hi Seth and Alma,
I have been enjoying the comment thread and appreciate both of your insights. From a Christian perspective I would humbly submit that our New Testament apostles did not add new Christological doctrine but simply pointed back to the work of Christ on the cross as sufficient for salvation. I can’t seem to find where any of the NT apostles added something to the gospel. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 2:2, “For I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified.” Certainly Paul and the other NT writers made clarifying statements but nothing that added to or changed the soteriological doctrine. Later Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 15:3-5, “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.” I would not deny Joseph Smith as a prophet depending on how you define prophet. I tend to lean more to the cessationist theological perspective so you will have to keep that in mind as context for my argument. If Joseph Smith was simply proclaiming Christ but not new revelation then yes I guess I would say he is a prophet just like anyone today who would proclaim Christ crucified as payment enough for sin. All the best to you Seth and Alma and thank you again for your comments!
Jason,
I too have been enjoying this discussion. I now have a question or two for you.
I’m not sure I fully understand what you mean by the apostles not having added new Christological doctrine. It seems to me that a great deal of the New Testament deals with doctrinal elements—clarifying the need for the Redeemer, the nature of His atonement, the resurrection, the fact that Christ created all things. It seems to me that there are scores–if not hundreds–of Christological doctrines expounded and propounded by the apostles.
Although you seem to qualify that by noting they didn’t add to “the gospel.” Is that what you’re saying, that Joseph Smith added to “the gospel?” If that’s the case, could you perhaps give me an example?
Thank you in advance for your reply and previous comments. I’m pretty much occupied all day Saturday and Sunday, but will get back to you if you reply.
All the best,
Alma
Hi Alma,
Yes, so sorry to not elaborate more on my previous post. What I mean to say is that the apostles and New Testament writers did not add anything to the doctrine of salvation by Jesus Christ alone. I was thinking there was a comment above that mentioned that the Mormon view of salvation is faith in Christ plus acceptance of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon. Please forgive me but I didn’t read back through the comments above so maybe you would disagree with that assertion. The Christian NT writers and apostles indeed helped shape much of our doctrine and with respect to soteriology they always pointed back to Jesus and his death on the cross and resurrection as the means for salvation. I understand your assertion in a post above that many of the NT writers made additions by adding works as mentioned in the book of James, etc. I am a proponent of the Sola Fide idea that faith alone in Christ is enough and then works/deeds are an overflow of a new life in Christ but not the means to salvation. Hope this makes sense! All the best!
I was thinking there was a comment above that mentioned that the Mormon view of salvation is faith in Christ plus acceptance of Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.
I wouldn’t be comfortable with that explanation. I would not say that it is faith plus anything; but rather that faith in Christ necessarily includes acceptance of all his messengers.
Those who reject Christ’s messengers can’t claim to have faith in Christ any more than those who reject Christ can claim they have faith in His Father. Christ said to His apostles, “He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” (Luke 10:16 – NIV).
Faith in Christ is a package deal—it presupposes acceptance of all the prophets who come in His name; otherwise Christ is divided—some for Paul, others for Apollos and still others for Peter (see 1 Corinthians 1:12-13). The Jews claimed to follow Moses while rejecting Christ. He pointed out, “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.” (John 5:46) I don’t think anyone can seriously believe that they can reject Paul’s authority and Peter’s authority and claim at the same time to be following Christ. Paul wrote, “Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.” (1 Cor. 4:16) What do you think his response would have been to someone who said, “I don’t need to follow you, I believe only in Christ.”
I understand your assertion in a post above that many of the NT writers made additions by adding works as mentioned in the book of James, etc. I am a proponent of the Sola Fide idea that faith alone in Christ is enough and then works/deeds are an overflow of a new life in Christ but not the means to salvation. Hope this makes sense! All the best!
It makes sense, but I think it illustrates the necessity of a prophet who knows rather than proposes. There is a problem with being a proponent of any theological position. As Dan pointed out at the beginning of this subject, when there are two positions, one of them is going to be wrong (and both them could be wrong.) Peter didn’t teach doctrine based on his interpretation of scripture. He wrote, “We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Peter 1:19-21).
I maintain that salvation is by faith alone—it couldn’t come in any other way.
Alma