by
Shandon L. Guthrie
Introduction
In the past few years people have requested the information I have written on the topic of the Latter-Day Saints (Mormons). About eight years ago, I had gathered up research that I had done on Mormonism and generated a paper discussing it. Due to the ever-increasing need to minister the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a dying world, I have decided to re-write and update this information espousing the Christian standpoint on the comparison between orthodox Christianity and Mormonism. It is my goal to present the Evangelical perspective and to discuss the nature and defense of Mormon doctrine. In this essay I respond to Mormon claims about God and Man and Mormonism's peculiar soteriological structure. As such, I have provided documentation and quotations to adequately represent what Mormons believe and what their prophets have declared.
Before covering the issues in Mormonism, it would be beneficial to first observe a brief history of the very foundation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
The History of The Latter-Day Saints(1)
Joseph Smith, Jr., was born in Sharon, Vermont on the 23rd of December, 1805 as the fourth son to Lucy Mack and Joseph Fielding Smith. Smith attended a local Protestant church as a youth until one day he had decided that the divisions of mainstream Christianity were too problematic for him. This led Smith (in 1820) to a nearby forest where he allegedly began praying for divine guidance as to "which of all the sects was right".(2) The Father and Son allegedly appeared to Joseph and declared that he "must join none of them, for they were all wrong" because "their creeds were an abomination in his sight".(3) This led to the establishment of Joseph Smith as divine revelator and translator of the Book of Mormon.(4)
In 1823, Smith received another visitation. The angel Moroni (the angel's name was changed to Nephi in subsequent writings(5)) appeared to him and informed him of a history that had been recorded on golden plates. With this revelation in mind, and shortly after his trial in 1826 in The People vs. Joseph Smith The Glass Looker,(6) Smith unearthed the gold plates via angelic guidance on the Hill Cumorah in Manchester, New York. On May 15, 1829, John the Baptist allegedly appeared and conferred the Aaronic Priesthood on Smith and his scribe Oliver Cowdery. Toward the end of 1829 and the beginning of 1830 Joseph Smith, Jr. received the Melchizedek Priesthood. 1830 marked the publication date of the first printing of the Book of Mormon. 1833 was the publication year of Smith's first 65 revelations under the title, Book of Commandments which has since been edited dramatically and published under its new title Doctrine & Covenants.
Even though Joseph Smith, Jr. publicly denied practicing polygamy,(7) according to Mormon Elder William Berret in his book, The Restored Church (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret, 1956), pp. 247 & 249, Smith did secretly marry other wives. Later, around the time of the first and only edition ofThe Nauvoo Expositor in 1844, Smith, under the orders of the Nauvoo City Council and Mayor Joseph Smith, accompanied the city marshal and a handful of Mormon men to destroy the printing press and the office of The Nauvoo Expositor.(8) As a result, Smith was arrested and jailed in Carthage, Illinois on the charge of "treason." June 17, 1844 was the date of the assassination of Joseph Smith, Jr.(9) Two years later, Brigham Young led a Mormon migration from Illinois. Shortly after the printing of the Pearl of Great Price (in 1851), Young was appointed by Millard Fillmore as governor over the Utah Territory. These events sum up the history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and give us background information on the source of this self-appointed "restoration" of the Christian church.
The Mormon Concept of God
Essentially, the Mormon concept of God is radically different than that of the Evangelical concept. None of the early Church Fathers entertained the LDS beliefs in the context of God and on the nature of human immortality. Following is a brief overview of the important characteristics of the Being Mormons call God and on the nature of mankind.
1) The three members of the Godhead are separate, distinct gods enjoying ontologically distinct natures. According to Mormon sources, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate gods completely distinct from one another in essence and in nature.
2) The Father and the Son are both corporeal beings. In Mormonism, the Father and the Son have physical bodies of flesh and bone.
3) Since each of the gods was created, each god is contingent on another for its own existence. Mormons believe that the Father was not always God but, rather, through a process of exaltation eventually graduated to a place of deification. The deities of Mormonism are finite and achieve infinite qualities endowed by that god's god (whichever one that may be on his/her respective world). It is through obeying the principles and ordinances of the Mormon gospel that God achieved exaltation. Theologians refer to this belief as Finite Godism.
4) The deification of man is available to the Mormon. In reference to such Mormon scriptures as the Doctrine & Covenants, we see that man has the potential in the Mormon gospel to attain exaltation and become a god himself. This new god is deployed to his own world to populate and rule after the post-mortem reuniting with fellow spirit beings. Mormons, however, make mention that a "newer" god may never overrule an "older" god.
5) "Elohim" is the name of the Father and "Jehovah" is the name of the Son (later identified as Jesus) for they are two ontologically distinct beings.
It is difficult to find total agreement among Mormons and even more difficult to find a Mormon who will officially speak on behalf of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. In order to avoid ambiguity on the Mormon concept of God and other issues, I have sought the sources of Mormon beliefs through historical and current publications; So, I am basing the Mormon defense on the authorities of the Mormon Church themselves on not on the basis of alleged hearsay. For a more detailed yet simplified outline of the Mormon concept of God, refer to the LDS tract The Plan of Salvation and the book Mormon Doctrine by Mormon Apostle Bruce R. McConkey.
The Argument for the Mormon Concept of God
Before we can begin tackling the issues advanced by Mormon authorities, we must first examine some arguments presented by those who defend these doctrines. I will provide an assessment of the arguments and will give reasons to believe that they are untenable. The following is the general position held by most active Mormons.
1) The Bible supports the many-gods theory (polytheism/henotheism) according to 1 Corinthians 8:5 where it is said that there are "gods many and lords many." Scripture also considers God to be the "God of gods" and the "Lord of lords" (e.g. Deuteronomy 10:17). The reference to the"gods" in this passage is not to idols or false gods but to gods by nature. Mormons point out that the context is devoid of any mention of pagan or false deities.
2) The Bible supports the corporeality of the Father and Son. One of the primary arguments in support of this theory is that the biblical language used of God is anthropomorphic (i.e. Numbers 12:8; 2 Samuel 22:9; Ezra 8:22; Revelation 1:14, to state a few).
3) It is declared by Mormons that the Bible makes God a finite being who achieves an actual infinite of distinct qualities through exaltation. The argument goes something like this: Since mankind achieves exaltation by obeying the principles and ordinances of the gospel, then it follows that God, too, achieved such a status. Further, it is argued that the Bible only addresses those gods over this world, not on the worlds that exist ex haec terra (cf. Isaiah 44:6).
4) The defense of the deification of man is found in biblical texts such as John 10:34 and Psalm 82:6 where men of God are called "gods." It is further argued that the New Testament considers those who possess salvation as "joint heirs" with Jesus.(10) They declare that this cannot mean anything else but inheriting all that Jesus has, including godhood.
5) Mormons argue that since "Elohim" (the Hebrew word for "god" in the Old Testament) is the Creator (Genesis 1-3) and Jesus is the "tool" through which the Father created (Colossians 1:16), then Jehovah must be Jesus (since a self-contained being would not have two different names). Also, John 16 records a conversation between the Father and the Son. Thus, the Father and the Son possess an ontological distinction in nature and, as such, would only make sense that they would possess two different names.
Some Problems With The Mormon Concept of God
Very few Christians are familiar with Mormon apologetics. I invite both Mormon and non-Mormon to review the following responses to the above arguments and draw a conclusion based on the facts, not on subjective, esoteric experiences (cf. D&C 9). In order to understand why I think the Mormon paradigm is flawed and that there are reasons to dismiss it, I have provided several responses.
1) Two essential arguments have been given in defense of polytheism. The first deals with passages such as 1 Corinthians 8:5 and other related texts, and the second with Deuteronomy 10:17 and those related texts. It shall be demonstrated that the Mormon interpretation of these texts does not entertain proper exegesis on the intent of the texts themselves.
First, the Corinthians passage explicitly defines the "gods" being mentioned as "idols" (8:4). Secondly, the text continues to assert that "there is none other god but one" (final clause in verse 4). Thirdly, the gods that are mentioned are gods "whether in heaven or in earth" (v. 5). Indeed, the reference is to any god relative to natural or supernatural orientation that is supposed to exist implying their falsehood.(11) The implication of the passage (and the Greek text for that matter) is the contrast between the so-called gods of paganism versus the infinite God of glory. No plurality of genuine deities is being envisaged here.
I believe that there are some problems with the Mormon interpretation of the Deuteronomy passage as well. The presence of the "gods" class does not necessarily entail actual deities for two reasons. (i) The only types of gods said to exist outside of the true God are pagan deities. (ii) Moses had just written the declaration, "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord" (6:4) and thus precludes polytheism. So, no other god can be true except the true God. It is begging the question to assert that the "gods" and "lords" of 10:17 are deities by nature.
The Scriptures are very explicit in support of a monotheistic world view. Such passages as Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; Jeremiah 10:11; Malachi 2:10; and 1 Corinthians 8:5 ("but to us there is but one God") refute polytheism. Therefore, it is incorrect to hold the position of polytheism under the scrutiny of Scripture.
2) The next argument Mormons advance is the corporeality of God (particularly, the Father). Although these passages use anthropomorphic language, it has not been demonstrated that this usage implies God's nature.(12) Secondly, one can surmise a counterexample to demonstrate that the language used of God in reference to "body parts and passions" is metaphorical. Psalm 91:4 (a common reference) cites God as having "wings" and "feathers." Yet, God is not a bird. Likewise, Jesus is not a light bulb (John 1:7), a loaf of bread (6:51), a crematory (Hebrews 12:29), a fruited vine (John 15:5), or a human well (4:14). Thus, the language used cannot be anything but metaphorical. Such stringent observations need to focus in on the particular genre of literature employed. For a more detailed discussion on the corporeality of God, see my work, "A Response to 'Man: Made in the Image of God' by Rusty Wells."(13)
For a brief, positive defense of the non-corporeality of God, I invite the reader to examine John 4:24, "God is spirit and those that worship Him must worship in spirit and truth." Such a text, however, is not readily accepted by Mormons. Mormons attempt to answer this verse by noting that the worshipers are "in spirit." The question that is then asked is, "Do you believe that God's worshipers are incorporeal beings?" Obviously the answer is "No." So what can we say about God's being "a spirit?" By observing the grammatical structure of 4:24, the meaning of the text can be extracted. The subject "God" in this passage is in the nominative case. The object of predication, "spirit," is also in the nominative case but is conjugated in a neutral gender. Note that in the Greek text the phrase reads, theos ho pneuma or God the spirit. Sometimes when clauses of predication are written, the linking verbs are left out. When two subjects are given in a clause having the same declension they usually refer to one another. The interpretation of 4:24 is simple, God is proposed to have the nature of spirit. The verse is written in such a way that mere similarity or metaphor is not intended.(14) It is just as feasible to translate 4:24 as, "God=spirit." Now, when one "worships in spirit," one is not being described. The word "spirit" here is in the dative case thereby denoting a medium through which the worship is carried out. This is different from the subject of those who are told to worship Him! In this context, "spirit" is the means of how we are to worship God, not a description of our ontological status.
Much more could be said about the incorporeality of God,(15) but suffice it to say that Scripture teaches a God who is spirit both in nature and in essence.
3) Mormonism also asserts the Finite Godism theory. The argument Mormons give in defense of it has several problems. First, it clearly begs the question by presupposing the existence of an exaltation process and applying it to mankind. It must be established biblically prior to such a process. Secondly, Scripture makes it clear that God is beyond physical time having no beginning (Psalms 90:2; Micah 5:2; Hebrews 13:8). Thirdly, and most importantly, is the error in believing that a finite being may achieve an actual infinite level of power and knowledge. Space does not permit a detailed explanation of the problems with an actual infinite but a few points can be made.(16) First, if you had to travel from Las Vegas to Seattle and the distance was an infinite amount of miles, then you could never reach your destination. No matter how far you traveled, you could always go one more mile. Second, by definition you cannot reach the destination of something that is infinitely distant because if the end was reached, then the distance must have been finite. Finally, Zeno's paradox evinces the absurdity of achieving an actual infinite. Zeno stated that if you had to travel from point A to point B, you would first have to reach their midpoints. And before you reached that midpoint you would have to reach the midpoint of that midpoint, and so on. Thus, Zeno concluded, motion and change do not exist (See Frederick Copleston, A History of Philosophy (New York, NY: Doubleday, 1993), pp. 56-7). Since there really is motion then there is something obviously wrong with this conclusion. This is where the presupposition that an actual infinite can be traversed is disconfirmed. So, Zeno has begged the question and concluded that motion was an illusion. Hence, achieving an actual infinite through successive addition from a finite level is metaphysically impossible.
4) This next argument is theological and concerns the deification of man. First, Mormons cite John 10:34 where Jesus emphatically calls his Jewish adversaries "gods." Does this text advocate deification? I think some reasons can be given to demonstrate that it does not. (i) Jesus was catching them at one of their hypocritical declarations. The scenario that unfolds is this: Jesus claims absolute deity (v. 30). The Jews attempt to assassinate him once again on the grounds of blasphemy (v. 31). Jesus points out their hypocracy by noting that these same Jews were called "gods" by virtue of their having God's power move through them (cf. Psalms 82:6); Yet they do not consider that blasphemy. (ii) Certainly men are not "gods" currently.(17) (iii) Jesus would not have declared that his own adversaries were deities by nature. It must not be that Jesus was being sincere in the statement. Jesus was merely demonstrating their hypocracy when it came to the law and their own biases. But, more importantly, why would the Jews scoff Jesus for claiming a special relationship with God the Father when the Jews were comfortable being called "gods" themselves?
The second argument given in favor of human deification is found in Psalm 82:1-6 where there is said to be a judgment "among the gods." We see that the "mighty men" were called "gods" according to verse 6. But there are a couple of problems with the Mormon interpretation. First, the context is clear that God is mocking the rulers, not praising them.(18) Second, the reason God called the mighty judges "gods" was due to their perception by the nation. When the Lord of lords moved through men, the skeptical world saw this power and falsely attributed it to those men exercising it.(19)
The final argument given regards born again individuals being called the "heirs" of God.(20) There are some problems with the Mormon implication of this as well. First, the New Testament utilizes analogy to demonstrate the approximate characteristics that the Church will have in God's kingdom. For example, Christians are said to be the "bride" of Christ (Revelation 21:2) and yet we are not all female; Christians are called the "branches" of Jesus (John 15:5) and yet none of us are made of wood; and Christians are called the "heirs" of God and yet we will not possess the incommunicable attributes of deity. Second, if we are to take "heir" at its literal meaning, then we must conclude that God will at one point die. In order to be an heir, the original holder of that estate must cease to exist. Unless Mormons acknowledge mortality for God, an "heir" cannot have such a literal meaning. Thirdly, it is biblically true that no one may achieve deification (Isaiah 43:10; 44:6).(21) The entire panoply of Scripture in context makes this clear.
5) This final argument attempts to define the Father and the Son as two distinct beings. Much could be said concerning this matter but the flaw lies fundamentally in its presupposition. That is, just because two names are given and these beings are identified as conversing with one another does not necessarily entail an ontological distinction. Therefore, the Mormon argument succeeds at only begging the question once again.
First, the John 16 interaction between the Father and the Son does not contradict the doctrine of the Trinity but is consistent with it.(22) Second, there are some 30+ names for God in the Bible (such as El-Gibbor, El-Shaddai, Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah-Jireh, et al). Now, this does not mean that there are 30+ gods that exist. Thirdly, Deuteronomy 6:4 (quoted above) uses the names "Jehovah" and "Elohim" as referring to the same God.(23) Lastly, the term "elohim" is a generic Hebrew word for "gods" or even "angels." The reason for this plurality is not that there is necessarily more than one being but that, in Jewish culture, it was the method of glorification of an object or person. For example, the Queen of England may say, "We wish to congratulate you." But this in no way means that there is more than one Queen of England. Further, one must consider that if Jesus is Jehovah, then we have two proper names for the same God (this is not to be confused with the Hebrew titles). Therefore, the Mormon argument on this matter is easily answerable.
In conclusion, there is no good evidence to support the Mormon arguments for their estranged concepts of God and Man..
The Case for the Apostasy: Did the Church Disappear?
Perhaps the largest presupposition in the Mormon Church is the common claim that the orthodox Christian Church suffered an apostasy leading to the complete disappearance of the original doctrines and creeds of God. So, the Mormon Church charges Christians with the deliberate mishandling of sacred Scripture.(24) It is further bolstered that Scripture predicted such a universal apostasy.(25) And finally, Mormons claim, like many atheists and agnostics, that the continuous copying of Scripture leads to a tattered rendering of the original. However, there are some severe problems with the Mormon case on this issue.
First, the biblical texts referring to a "universal apostasy" are not using universal language (cf. footnote 21). These verses use particular language to forewarn the Churches that some apostasy and falling away will occur. Secondly, the "restitution" in Acts 3:19-21 is not referring to a total restoration of doctrine but to a new world described in Revelation 21 and 22. Thirdly, a citation of Rev. 14:6-7 is odd because the text declares that the gospel is "everlasting." Now, if the gospel is everlasting then why is it disappearing for approximately 17 centuries? Fourthly, the Bible supports the preservation of Scripture, not its abolishment.(26) So any mentioning of an apostasy is simply unfounded. Lastly, the burden of proof is on the Mormon (an individual who also accepts the Bible for doctrinal support) to produce any discrepancies or contradictions on those areas of theology that would greatly imply a deliberate transmission error. It is only then can Evangelicals deal with them on a case-by-case basis.
In regard to general biblical reliability, there are a few things that can be said. First, the Bible had been written by different people (some 40+ authors) in different geographical locations in different time periods spanning more than two millennia. These manuscripts all agree on the essentials of the Jewish and Christian faiths with only typographical errors in contradistinction. Second, the wealth of availability of the various manuscripts actually adds support to an identical reprint. That is, when several manuscripts record a specific event (such as the Sermon on the Mount) and these manuscripts agree, then we may conclude that that is what the original autographa (the original hand-written text) stated. Third, archaeology supports the existence of the objects, people, and places suggested to exist. No one to date has been able to discredit the archaeological research vindicating the biblical data. Fourth, the early Church Fathers (Polycarp, Hippolytus, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Athanasius, Jerome, Luther, Calvin, Wesley, Augustine, et al.) have extensively copied from the Bible. It is staggering to know that the entire New Testament, with the exception of about 30 words, is reprinted in the Church Fathers alone!. That is remarkable testimony to the validity of the Bible.(27)
It appears, then, that the Mormon case for the apostasy is not only flawed but disconfirmed. I would invite open discussion on the matters of biblical discrepancies as an opportunity to observe that the alleged contradictions are illusory. It tends to be the trend that false religions in general begin with the misconception of God and His word.
Does the Bible Predict the Book of Mormon?
Another insight into the defense of Mormonism is the alleged predictions in the Bible that suppose a coming of the Book of Mormon. There are essentially two texts that are used in support of this argument. First, Ezekiel 37:16-17 mentions two "sticks" that are to be joined together and become "one" in God's "hand." One stick is the "stick of Judah" that is alleged to be the Bible, and the other stick is the "stick of Joseph" that is alleged to be the Book of Mormon. The argument is buttressed by Mormons who declare that the sticks are Hebrew terms referring to written texts or scrolls. Second, Isaiah 29:11-12 mentions a "book" that is delivered to a person who says "I cannot read a sealed book." This is supposedly fulfilled when the Book of Mormon is delivered to a man named Professor Anthon. Anthon reads the text and declares, "I cannot read a sealed book."(28) I believe that the Mormon interpretation is easily defeated.
First, the Ezekiel 37 passage is clearly defined in verses 18-22. The two "sticks" are stated to be the two nations (that of Judah and that of Ephraim). Jehovah was asking Ezekiel to merge two sticks in his hand with inscriptions representing their respective nations, symbolizing the unification of Israel. Secondly, Jehovah asked Ezekiel, not Joseph Smith, to write on the stick of (v. 16). It appears then that if the "stick of Joseph" is the Book of Mormon then it was really Ezekiel who wrote it. Lastly, it is unlikely that when this passage was delivered to the Jews, it referred to the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon had not yet been written! Therefore, Ezekiel 37 is far from supporting the Mormon allegations.
Second, the Isaiah 29 passage is falsely applied to the Book of Mormon as well. There is no indication in the passage that the statement about the unlearned man is prophetic.(29) In reality the context identifies this as an analogy described in a vision, not a prophecy to be fulfilled (v. 7). The context is simple: Those warring against the city of Ariel will be like a hungry man who dreams of eating (v. 8), and so forth (v. 8-10). This vision will be sealed and will be like a book that a literate man cannot read and like a book that an illiterate man could not read anyway. The text is not referring to some future unraveling of a Book of Mormon. Lastly, this text is also a pre-Book of Mormon Scripture which cannot be referring to a book that nobody has any idea what it will be.
Therefore, the interpretation that the Book of Mormon is implied prophetically by Ezekiel 37 and Isaiah 29 is disconfirmed by the contexts themselves.
The Book of Mormon vs. Doctrine & Covenants
A brief look at the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine & Covenants will reveal to any careful reader that these materials cannot possibly be inspired by God. As a note, a book alleged to be inspired by God must surely convey a clear and non-contradictory message on central theological issues since "God is not a God of confusion" (1 Cor. 14:33). Below are some examples of the contradictions found in Mormon scripture.
1) God dwells in the hearts of the righteous (Alma 34:36).
Yet, the idea that God dwells in the hearts of the righteous is false (D&C 130:3).
2) There are many Gods and more to come (D&C 132:20).
Yet, there is only one God (Alma 11:26-29, 35).
3) The prophet Alma murdered many, repented, and was forgiven (Alma 36:14-20).
Yet, murder is an unforgivable sin (D&C 42:18).
4) Jesus is both the Person of the Father and the Son (Mosiah 15:2-5).
Yet, Jesus and the Father are two separate beings (D&C 130:22).
The Pearl of Great Price vs. the Pearl of Great Price
The Mormon scripture, Pearl of Great Price, includes the books of Abraham, Moses (an extract of Matthew as written by Joseph Smith), Joseph Smith-History, and the Articles of Faith. These books do not cooperate with each other as will be demonstrated below:
1) Only one God created the world (Moses 2:9-10).
Many gods created the world (Abraham 4:9-10).(30)
2) The whole world will be aware of Christ's second coming (JS-Matthew 1:26).
Joseph Smith saw Christ in a vision, secretly (JS-History 1:18).
3) Moses 6:57 has internal problems by A) calling Jesus the Son of Man prior to having His incarnate nature and B) making Jesus' last name, "Christ." In addition, the name "Jesus" was not given until shortly before his conception (Luke 2:21).
There is simply no reason to think that the Mormon scriptures possess any divine characteristics, especially since they contradict themselves on essential areas of doctrine.
Conclusion
It has been demonstrated that there are no good reasons to suppose that Mormonism is true. As I have demonstrated, there are good reasons to show that the Bible supports an orthodox view of Christianity. Also, the existence of a universal apostasy has been shown to be wholly untenable. And finally, it has also been established that there are irreconcilable inconsistencies present throughout Mormon scriptures on important theological matters.
The message of the true Lord of glory is clear, namely, that we should not believe every "spirit" that claims to come from God (1 John 4:1). Secondly, we must test all things and hold on to that which is worth while (1 Thess. 5:21; Acts 17:11). Finally, we must use common sense to know that a faith that has internal inconsistencies and fallacious presuppositions is probably false.
What is the truth? God's plan of salvation is clear: 1) Admit that you are a sinner in need of a redeemer (Psalm 14; Romans 6:23); 2) Know that Jesus is the only way to get to God (John 14:6; 1 Tim. 2:5); 3) Know that our works have nothing to do with our salvation nor do they have the power to save us (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Rom. 4:5; Isaiah 64:6); 4) Know that we must call upon Jesus to forgive us of our sins and to come and dwell in our hearts (Rom. 10:9-13; Gal. 4:4-6; John 3:16). It is through the Biblical process that we may receive the real Jesus who is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb. 13:8) and the same God as the Father (John 1:1, 18).
1. The history of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints can be read in detail in the following church publications: Joseph Fielding Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith(Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976) and History of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret, 1951), Vol. 1-6; LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company, 1976 and 1979 editions); B.H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Company); and additional resources both secular and Christian, Fawn M. Brodie, No Man Knows My History (New York: Alfred A. Knop, 2nd ed. 1970); David A. Reed and John R. Farkas, Mormons Answered Verse By Verse, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1992) pp. 15-20.
2. Pearl of Great Price, JS-History (Salt Lake City, UT: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, 1989 ed.) 1:18.
4. The Book of Mormon is one of four standard works of the Church. Among them are the Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenants, Book of Mormon, and the Holy Bible (King James Version).
5. Deseret News, May 29, 1852 (Vol. 2, No. 15).
6. For a detailed treatment as to the history and conclusion of the trial of Joseph Smith, see D. Michael Quinn, Early Mormonism and the Magic World View, index under "Astrology."
7. History of the Church, vol. 6, p. 411.
8. See Kenneth W. Godfrey, Brigham Young University Studies, Winter 1968, pp. 212-214.
9. Most Mormons claim that Smith was a martyr. It is recorded, however, in the History of the Church vol. 6, pp. 617-618 that Joseph Smith possessed a six shooter and attempted to escape during a raid that ended his life. During this raid, Smith killed two men and wounded a third. Indeed, Smith was not a martyr.
10. cf. Romans 8:17; Galatians 4:7; James 2:5.
11. See Jeremiah 10:11 where the same phrase "heaven and earth" is clearly used to refer to false gods.
12. Determining predication versus metaphor is important since the items used ("hands," "feet," "ears," "nostrils," et al) must be interpreted according to context and method of writing. That is, are the details mentioned written in narrative or poetic language? Apocalyptic or historical? Certainly Jesus does not have white hair, brass feet, and a two-edged sword for a tongue (Revelation 1:13-16).
13. "A Response to Elder Rusty Wells' 'Man In the Image of God'" (written in 1996) can be found at http://members.aol.com/berean7/docs/repmormon.html.
14. Identity is the "whatness" of something. For example, an apple is a fruit. Predication is the "aboutness" or the description of an entity. For example, an apple has roundness, redness, sweetness, etc... Knowing the distinction between identity and predication is imperative in understanding when something is being described and when something is being identified.
15. See Numbers 23:19 and Hosea 11:9.
16. For a more thorough discussion on the problem of achieving an actual infinite through successive addition, see "Russell, Infinity, and the Tristram Shandy Paradox" (http://members.aol.com/berean7/docs/infinity.html).
17. Note that Jesus' response is in the present tense, not the future ("Ye are gods" - v. 34).
18. Verse 7 declares, "But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes." This can hardly be a claim to praise.
19. For example, Moses was considered a "god" in the eyes of Pharaoh, but Moses was never a god by nature (Exodus 7:1).
20. Mormon apologists Darrick Evenson (author of The Gainsayers) and Stephen E. Robinson (author of Are Mormons Christians?) are two proponents of this argument.
21. Mormons respond to these texts by asserting that "beside me there is no God" and "no God was formed before me and neither shall there be after me" are limited references to this world only. This interpretation is flawed, however. First, if there are three Gods presiding over this planet, then there are in fact Gods besides Jehovah in this world. In addition, if the Father created Jesus then Jesus (Jehovah) had a God before him in this world. Thus, the Mormon interpretation is self-refuting. Second, there is nothing in these passages that suggest a limited reference to this world only. Third, the Hebrew language is such that "beside me" actually means "apart" or "outside of" denoting an external relationship. Hence, the passage states that "outside of God there is no other," hardly a passage that can be limited. Lastly, both clauses use universal language, not particular. That is, the reference to there being no other God must encompass everything unless specific language in the text requires a limited translation. Note that there is no "in this world only" clause in either verse.
22. The doctrine of the Trinity is expressed this way: Within the nature of the one God are the three Persons who are co-existent, co-eternal, omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent. Note the presence of three persons in the one God.
23. The text literally states in Hebrew: "Listen carefully, Israel; Jehovah our Elohim is one Jehovah." The Hebrew uses Adonai for Jehovah and elohim for "god."
24. See 1 Nephi 13:26, 34-35, Book of Mormon.
25. The references given by Mormons are as follows: Amos 8:11-12; Is. 60:2; Acts 20:29-30; Gal. 1:6-9; 2 Thess. 2:3; 1 Tim. 4:1-3; 2 Tim. 1:15; 3:1-5; 4:2-4; 2 Peter 2:1-3; Rev. 3:14-17 and 13:6-7.
26. See Matthew 5:18 and 24:35.
27. For more extensive reading on the positive case for the Bible's authority, see, Gleason Archer, A Survey of the Old Testament: An Introduction (Chicago: Moody Press, 1973).
28. History of the Church, (vol. 1, p. 20).
29. That is, the language that is used is purely present tense. There are no indications of anything in this text that these events have yet to come about prophetically.
30. It is ironic that the two texts that contradict each other both lie in their respective chapters under the same verses (9-10).
Atheism | Theological Issues | Ethical Issues | Debates | About the Author | Links | Home
Copyright © 1989; 1992 Shandon L. Guthrie