Timothy Berman’s Source Page – Associated Content
Timothy Berman’s Source Page – Associated Contenthttp://www.associatedcontent.comuser/58170/timothy_berman.html
June 15, 2009
Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ – Elder Kevin W. Pearson
In keeping with the spirit of the previous post. I came across this video where Elder Pearson discusses Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The purpose of Faith, what Faith is, how faith is developed. A very important message for those who are attempting to understand what truly defines the LDS teaching and understanding of what it is we believe.
Here, Pearson discusses the 6 D’s that negatively impact ones faith. However, the whole video of Elder Pearsons talk can be seen here 179th General Conference and go down to the Saturday Afternoon session where you can select either Windows media player or quick time to view the video.
June 14, 2009
Gospel Principle: Faith in Jesus Christ
He is not only our Redeemer and Savior, but also the Son of the Living God
The Fourth Article of faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints states this: We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Each week, there will be a different focus regarding the three principles and ordinances of the Gospel as revealed in Scripture and Modern Day Revelation.
The focus of this article concerns the first Gospel Principle of having faith in Jesus Christ. What does this mean? What do the scriptures say? Why is this important for us to understand? Not only ought we ask such questions, but those who are investigating the LDS Faith may wonder whether or not the Latter-day Saint Christian believers accept and believe in the Christ of the Bible and traditional Christianity. There are many theories from Modern Evangelical Christians that postulate what they claim is true doctrine of the LDS Faith and those who believe and accept the doctrines of the Restored Gospel. Whether you are a member, struggling to understand the nature and basic principles of the Gospel, or an investigator who has some questions concerning what is and is not Mormon teaching, this article will discuss what the true nature of having faith in Christ means. Granted, this is not a thorough and exhaustive article, but one that is important in having a basic understanding of one of the most fundamental truths of all scripture.
Who do Men Say that I am?
One of the greatest questions of all time is that question Christ himself asked of his disciples. According to Matthew 16:13-18, we read the following:
When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea, Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou aret John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said. Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
Today, if one were to ask the same question, the answers would most likely vary from an embellished figure of the First Century, a good teacher and prophet, a mage, a nonhistorical person. Those of a variety of Christian faiths would say that he is the Savior of those who accept him as their Lord and Redeemer.
No matter what one’s position is, ideas are, thoughts pertaining to who Christ is, we must notice a more personal question that we all must ask. Who do we say that Christ is? It is this question we must answer. A question that is central to our faith and testimony in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The reason behind this is that when we look at the remaining passages of Matthew 16, we find something very important: And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
When we carefully look at the passage of Matthew 16, we find three important teachings here. The first is divine revelation. Divine revelation is the very foundation of the Gospel of Christ. It is through divine revelation that truths are revealed. It is through this concept that Faith in Jesus Christ is the first experience in a persons experience as to recieving a testimony. This truth does not come through teaching. It does not come through argumentation. It does not come through proving which doctrine is true or false. The reality is this, revelation comes from the Father which is in heaven, by and through the power of the Holy Spirit.
You are the Christ, Son of the Living God
The second important teaching here is that Christ distinguishes himself from the Father. My Father which is in Heaven. While we will not get too involved in this aspect, the reality is that Christ always distinguished himself from the Father. Even when it concerned his ministry and purpose in this life, he distinguished himself distinctly from the Father.
Finally, the third teaching that we find in these passages of Holy Writ is the very foundation of what Christ’s church will be built upon. The very rock that the Savior says that the gates of hell will not even prevail against it. The context only defines it and no other interpretation can be taken from this. The rock that the gates of hell can in no way prevail against is the testimony and faith as to who Jesus Christ is. His Church will be based upon revelation. And not just any revelation, but the revelation that Jesus is the Christ, son of the Living God. It is this revealed testimony that the gates of Hell would not be able to prevail against.
Many people have attempted to interpret this passage as to meaning that the Church refers to Christianity. Those of the Evangelical and Protestant movement claim that the First Century Christian church could not have fallen into a state of apostasy, because if it had, then that would mean that the gates of hell prevailed against the Church. And, many members of the Latter-day Saint Faith proclaim that this scripture passage refers to the priesthood authority (because verse 19 has Christ pronouncing divine authority upon Peter’s head) and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the priesthood authority established by Christ.
I disagree with both. Why? As explained, the foundation that the Church will be built upon is the rock of revelation. Specifically, the revelation as to whom Christ truly is as revealed unto men by our divine Heavenly Father, the Living God.
Not only this, but the very foundation of the Gospel is centered on Christ, his ministry and calling in mortality. 3 Nephi 27:13-15 reveals this:
Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you – that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up ny men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil – and for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works.
This is harmonious to the teaching of the Bible where Christ revealed unto his very own disciples (whom he had called during his mortal ministry) as revealed in John 6:38-39 (see John 6:37-47):
For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.
What is even more interesting is that when we look at John 6:44, we find what Christ meant when he told Peter that the rock of which he will build his Church upon is that of revelation as to who he is: No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Hence, when we look at the question, Whom do you say that I am? It is a question we must wrestle with ourselves. Who do we personally say that Christ is? Do we honestly believe that he is the Son of the Living God? The one who was sent by the Father to do the will of the Father? Are we able to declare with an assurance that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God? It is a question that we must personally answer. It is a question that, once answered, lays the foundation of our Faith in Jesus Christ. It is the very foundation that the Gates of Hell will not prevail against.
As members of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ, the reason why this is important is because many have attempted to define and teach that Mormons do not believe in Christ of the Bible. That Mormonism does not teach that we accept the nature and person of Christ as it is revealed in the Bible. Yet, this teaching is based upon false arguments, half-truths, and distortions of what the true doctrines Latter-day Saint Christian believers accept as divine truth, revealed by a loving Father in Heaven.
Regarding this, many of the Prophets and Leaders of the Latter-day Saint Christian Faith have declared their faith in Jesus Christ. Have stood on their testimony of who Christ is as revealed by divine revelation. It is this central truth that many misunderstand what it is that Latter-day Saint believers are taught and instructed as to who Christ is and his ministry to bring about the salvation of mankind. These men of faith have stood with the Apostle Peter in declaring that Jesus is the Son of the Living God.
There is substantial evidence that one can refer to concerning the many testimonies given of Christ, his life, his ministry, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into heaven. However, suffice it for us to only mention a sampling of these confessions as given by divine revelation.
In a revelation given to Joseph Smith in April 1830 (Doctrine and Covenants 20:21-25), we read the following regarding what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ:
Wherefore, the Almighty God gave his Only Begotten Son, as it is written…He suffered temptations but gave no heed to them. He was crucified, died, and rose again the third day; and ascended inot heaven, to sit down on the right hand of the Father, to reign with almighty power according to the will of the Father; That as many as would believe and be baptized in his holy name, and endure in faith to the end, should be saved…
In another statement, the Prophet Joseph Smith declared the following:
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…{Teaching of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith, p. 49; 2007 published by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints}
The personhood of Christ, his mission during his mortal ministry, his death, his burial, his resurrection, and his ascension are more than just doctrines that men attempt to understand, but they are the very doctrines that scripture reveals as to who Christ truly is and what he truly had done. This brings the simple truth and reason as to why the Church is to be built upon Jesus Christ. The reason that he is the head of the Church, the Groom and the Church his Bride. He is the cheif cornerstone that holds all things together.
Another revelation, gives a more descriptive nature of who Christ truly is. This revelation was given in March of 1830 while the Prophet Joseph Smith was at Manchester New York. This specific Revelation is contained in Doctrine and Covenants 19:1-2 (see 19:1-4 in context):
I am Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world. I, having accomplished and finished the will of him whose I am, even the Father, concerning me – having done this that I might subdue all things unto myself
In fact, when one gives themselves over to an honest search as to the Prophet Joseph Smith and his encounters, teachings on, faith in, and testimony of Jesus Christ, one will begin to understand that he talked more about this than any other doctrine.
Yet, Joseph Smith was not the only prophet to reveal who Christ is, declared what his purpose and mission was, the importance in believing on Christ is when it comes to the faithful believers of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.
Elder Jeffrey R. Holland discusses the importance of missionary work as it correlates with the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In an article Missionary Work and the Atonement that appears in the October 2001 edition of the Liahona (p. 26). It is from a talk that Elder Holland gave at the Missionary Training Center on June 20, 2000. Here is what Elder Holland says: A convert’s new life is to be built upon faith in the Lord Jesus Christ and His redeeming sacrifice—a conviction that He really is the Son of God, that He lives this very moment, that He alone holds the key to our salvation and exaltation.
James E. Talmage declared this: …faith in Jesus Christ is indespensible to salvation. (Talmage, Articles of Faith, Missionary Edition – 1988; p. 96)
I, personally, would like to add that believing in Christ is not just merely believing in who he is, but believing and knowing for our own selves that he is the Son of the Living God and the Savior of humanity, by whom one could receive the forgiveness of their sins.
Jesus Christ – Son of the Living God:
One of the most interesting discussions ever to captivate the minds of men is the nature and personhood of Jesus Christ. Who was he? Is probably one of the most important questions we can ask of ourselves. And, out of the many attributes and titles ascribed to Jesus of Nazareth, none has caused more controversial and discord amidst todays Christian believers. That is Christ as the Son of the Living God.
Now, do not get me wrong here. Modern Christian believers do accept and teach that the Savior of mankind is called the Son of God. Yet, the question is – what does this mean? Why did Peter refer to Christ as the Son of The Living God? When we get right to the heart of the discussion, modern Christian thinkers have ascribed that Christ is the Son of God, second member of the Trinity who is of the same essence and nature of the Father, distinct in his personhood, but not distinct and separate by nature and personification. Here, I am not going to get into a discussion as to how and why this is so, but I bring this up because Christ himself had consistently referred to himself as being separate and distinct from the Father outside of the teachings of Latter-day Saint scripture and divine revelation.
Turning back to Peter’s confession in Matthew 16:16 – …Thou art the Christ, Son of the Living God. It is here that we begin our discussion. Already, we have established the importance of having a testimony of Christ, who he is, what he came to do and those who have testified of who he is, his ministry, and the reality of the Atonement that is by and through him. Now, we are looking at the reference to Christ being the Son of the Living God. And, regarding this specific passage, I will share with you one of my favorite Bible Commentaries as to what this passage means to us.
He does not say, “Scribes and Pharisees, rulers and people, are all perplexed; and shall we, unlettered fishermen, presume to decide?” But feeling the light of his Master’s glory shining in his soul, he breaks forth—not in a tame, prosaic acknowledgment, “I believe that Thou art,” &c.—but in the language of adoration—such as one uses in worship, “Thou Art the Christ, the Son of the Living God!” He first owns Him the promised Messiah (see on Mt 1:16); then he rises higher, echoing the voice from heaven—”This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased”; and in the important addition—”Son of the Living God“—he recognizes the essential and eternal life of God as in this His Son—though doubtless without that distinct perception afterwards vouchsafed.
The Divine Sonship of Christ is recorded 71 times in the New Testament Text, 31 times in the Book of Mormon, and 24 times in the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price. If one is inclined, I would highly suggest investigating the following topics that deal with this very truthful divine aspect of Jesus Christ: Jesus Christ-Divine Sonship; Jesus Christ – Firstborn; Jesus Christ – Relationship with the Father.
Not only are there many scriptural references to the nature and reality of Christ being the Son of God, but there is also the testimony of the Prophets as to Christ being the Son of the Living God. Many of these Prophets and Apostles, most Modern Christian believers disregard, vehemently declare false teachers of a false gospel. Yet, let the reader be a judge of the evidence that is so easily ascertained. One of those teachings is the reality of Christ’s divine Sonship. That he truly is not just merely the redeemer by which men can be saved, but he is the Son of the Living God. That it was and through the will of the Father that Christ were to come and accomplish the ultimate sacrifice to bring about the powers of the Atonement.
Referring to the Fourth Article of Faith, Elder Russell M. Ballard says this: For one to accept that concept requires dynamic faith. Faith is the foundation of personal testimony. The first principles of the gospel begin with faith in the Lord Jesus Christ.
Hence, the object of our Faith is the very foundation that we must have concerning who Christ is, his divine purpose, his ministry, his atonement of humanity, and the divine relationship he has with our loving Heavenly Father.
Our Redeemer and Savior
2 Nephi 25:25-26 says this:
For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments. And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.
No greater doctrine has more truth than that of Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior. He is the
He took upon himself the sin of the World and fulfilled the Will of His Father according to the Plan of Salvation that was laid before the Foundation of the World.
redeemer of our souls, the provider where the forgiveness of sins can be given to those who come to him with a pure heart and in sincere humility. While many proclaim that the Latter-day Saint believers teach a false gospel that is not Biblical, the reality is this: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches, stands upon the divine revelation that Christ is the Son of the Living God, the redeemer of mankind and that by and through him all men may be saved. This is supported on the testimony of many scripture passages that reveal who Christ is, the testimony of the faithful prophets and apostles whom Christ has revealed himself to.
Strip away all the other doctrines of the LDS Church and save the doctrine of Atonement as revealed in scripture, one will come to the realization that the critics are in gross error of their condemnation. Much like Peter, many Latter-day Saint Christians stand and proclaim “You are the Christ, Son of the Living God”. Not because someone taught them this principle. Not because they studied the scriptures, or read books. Not because they heard a sermon from some preacher, or a radio program. Not becasue they said a simple prayer asking Christ into their heart to be the Lord and Savior of their life, forgiving them of their sins. It is based upon the single divine revelation that the Holy Spirit has revealed unto them.
I testify unto all who read this, that there is no greater foundation that one could build upon save the foundation of Faith in Jesus Christ. I also testify that Christ lived, that he was born of a virgin, that he grew and taught the doctrines of the true Gospel, called men by divine authority, setting them apart to be his disciples. I testify that he is the Son of the Living God who came to do the will of his Father, that he is separate and distinct from the Father, that he lived his life in perfect righteousness and that it is through him we are able to find redemption. By his example, we are able to follow and grow from faith to faith and that it is through his atonement that we are saved.
If you truly would like to know for yourself whether or not you can have a faith in Jesus Christ, follow the direction and example of Nephi as recorded in 1 Nephi 2:16:
And it came to pass that I, Nephi, being exceedingly young, nevertheless being large in stature, and also having great desires to know of the mysteries of God, wherefore, I did cry unto the Lord; and behold he did visit me, and did soften my heart that I did believe all the words which had been spoken by my father; wherefore, I did not rebel against him like unto my brothers.
We can know for ourselves that Christ is the Son of the Living God. And, it is the first principle of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that we are to have a faith in Christ. Not just believing that he has redeemed us from our sins, but believe in who he is, his life, ministry, death, burial, resurrection, ascension and ultimate coming unto the children of men. I testify of these things in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
June 7, 2009
Importance of studying the Book of Mormon
Introduction:
I am currently studying for a Bachelor’s in Arts and Science in communications with an emphasis on Technical Communication. This study is through Kaplan University Online and I have already successfully accomplished 10 full credit hours of education. This has earned me a 4.0 GPA so far. Yet, the ability to return back to school and utilize modern technology to accomplish something that I thought I would never be able to experience is not why I have decided to create this journal for. Or, at least it is not the main reason behind this journal.
One of the challenges actually has far more significance than earning a higher education and degree. This challenge is to get back into another passion of mine and that is scripture study and devotion. Majority of my problem is that I lack motivation, easily distracted, establishing too high of an expectation, and take on too much than what I am able to handle. Not only that, but I also lack the ability to manage my time effectively.
Thus, at the age of 38 years, I need to reassess what my priorities are, realign my goals, and position myself to be able to establish realistic goals that are manageable and attainable. Within this, I must begin to make serious time with personal scripture study, prayer, and devotion.
Hence, Brigham Young University offers free online enrichment courses in the study of the Book of Mormon, Old and New Testament and Church History. All of which I am deciding to incorporate within my current online studies for my Bachelor degree program. Basically, if I can devote time to my educational goals, how much more ought I to devote my time to reacquainting myself with the Book of Mormon, the basic essentials of the doctrines of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Old and New Testament, LDS Church History, and rekindle the passion I once had for apologetic and studying the doctrines of the LDS Faith.
Therefore, the purpose of this journal is to document my journey back into the study, reading, and prayerfull devotion of the Book of Mormon, Messages from the General Authorities, Doctrine and Covenants, Old and New Testaments, and personal experience as I reacquaint myself with sincere thoughtful prayer.
Why begin with the study and reading of the Book of Mormon?
As I started in on the first lesson in the study of the Book of Mormon, a handful of fundamental statements caught my attention. The first is a reference to President Ezra Taft Benson’s Talk A Sacred Responsibility given at the April 1986 General Conference. In this talk, President Benson refers to something very significant that I had personally forgotten about:
Now, in our day, the Lord has revealed the need to reemphasize the Book of Mormon to get the Church and all the children of Zion out from under condemnation – the scourge and judgment. (see D&C 84:54-58) This message must be carried to the members of the Church throughout the world.
According to D&C 84:54-58 we read the following:
And your minds in times past have been darkened because of unbelief, and because you have treated lightly the things you have received – Which vanity and unbelief have brought the whole church under condemnation. And this condemnation resteth upon the children of Zion, even all. And they shall remain under this condemnation until they repent and remember the new covenant, even the Book of Mormon and the former commandments which I have given them, not only to say, but to do according to that which I have written.
This passage of scripture is directed towards the early saints of the restored gospel, specifically those who were returning from the mission field and reporting on their labors in spreading the restored gospel of Jesus Christ. And, just as this revelation was important for the early saints, and those who were returning or entering the mission field, it is even more important for us as members of the restored Gospel of Jesus Christ to not merely understand the Book of Mormon through casual readings, but to incorporate it into our lives. Meaning, we are not to treat the Book of Mormon lightly. We are to study from it daily. We are to prayerfully and sincerely approach the words with humility and openness that it is the Word of God just as much as the Old and New Testament is the word of God. In fact, when you think about this, our loving Heavenly Father has given us the reason as to why we have the scriptures: All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. – 2 Timothy 3:16-17, King James Version.
Furthermore, those who receive the Book of Mormon as the word of God by faith and abide by its precepts, are blessed. Those who condemn it, harden their hearts against it or reject it because of unbelief, they do so unto their own condemnation (see D&C 20:14-15).
Three reasons as to why a lifelong study of the Book of Mormon:
1) The Book of Mormon as the Keystone:
The Prophet Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon is “the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts…” (History of the Church, 4:461)
Personally, I never fully understood how and why the Book of Mormon is referred to as the “keystone” of the Latter-day Saint Faith and the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days. Until recently, I just accepted the fact that the idea of the Book of Mormon being central to my own personal faith and the foundation as to why Heavenly Father had brought about the restoration of the Gospel were part and parcel of the overall plan of the restoration. My perception changed once I delved into this personal study, making a committment to not only read the Book of Mormon, but reaquaint myself with it through prayerful sincere study.
In fact, it is President Ezra Taft Benson that had provided the explanation as to the how and why the Book of Mormon is the keystone of the Mormon Religion - and, furthermore, I shall add, be the purpose and keystone of our own personal faith and testimony.
the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. This was the Prophet Joseph Smith’s statement. He testified that “the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion” (Introduction to the Book of Mormon). A keystone is the central stone in an arch. It holds all the other stones in place, and if removed, the arch crumbles.
There are three ways in which the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It is the keystone in our witness of Christ. It is the keystone of our doctrine. It is the keystone of testimony.
President Benson’s words are simple and direct. The more I ponder this, the more I come to realize the true importance and sacredness of the Book of Mormon in the coming forth of how and why the Gospel of Jesus Christ was restored in these last days. Yet, he expounds on how and why the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion in the areas of our witness of Christ, our doctrine, and testimony.
The Book of Mormon is the keystone in our witness of Jesus Christ, who is Himself the cornerstone of everything we do. It bears witness of His reality with power and clarity. Unlike the Bible, which passed through generations of copyists, translators, and corrupt religionists who tampered with the text, the Book of Mormon came from writer to reader in just one inspired step of translation. Therefore, its testimony of the Master is clear, undiluted, and full of power. But it does even more. Much of the Christian world today rejects the divinity of the Savior. They question His miraculous birth, His perfect life, and the reality of His glorious resurrection. The Book of Mormon teaches in plain and unmistakable terms about the truth of all of those. It also provides the most complete explanation of the doctrine of the Atonement. Truly, this divinely inspired book is a keystone in bearing witness to the world that Jesus is the Christ (see title page of the Book of Mormon).
The Book of Mormon is also the keystone of the doctrine of the Resurrection. As mentioned before, the Lord Himself has stated that the Book of Mormon contains the “fulness of the gospel of Jesus Christ” (D&C 20:9). That does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. Rather, it means that in the Book of Mormon we will find the fulness of those doctrines required for our salvation. And they are taught plainly and simply so that even children can learn the ways of salvation and exaltation. The Book of Mormon offers so much that broadens our understandings of the doctrines of salvation. Without it, much of what is taught in other scriptures would not be nearly so plain and precious.
Finally, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of testimony. Just as the arch crumbles if the keystone is removed, so does all the Church stand or fall with the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon. The enemies of the Church understand this clearly. This is why they go to such great lengths to try to disprove the Book of Mormon, for if it can be discredited, the Prophet Joseph Smith goes with it. So does our claim to priesthood keys, and revelation, and the restored Church. But in like manner, if the Book of Mormon be true—and millions have now testified that they have the witness of the Spirit that it is indeed true—then one must accept the claims of the Restoration and all that accompanies it.
Yes, my beloved brothers and sisters, the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion—the keystone of our testimony, the keystone of our doctrine, and the keystone in the witness of our Lord and Savior.
After reading this (or the entire talk given by President Benson at the October General Conference in 1986), how does this change your perception to the reality and sacredness of the Book of Mormon in your own personal life? Have you neglected to read and study this set of Scripture that is ordained of God and given for our own edification in the building of our own personal faith and testimony as well as that of our family and community?
The interesting aspect of this, that I also have discovered, is that President Benson declares that the Book of Mormon contains the Fulness of the Gospel, which does not mean it contains every teaching, every doctrine ever revealed. His plain understanding and revelation is that the Book of Mormon contains the fulness of those doctrines that pertain to salvation.
Furthermore, the Book of Mormon is not something that has come to replace the Bible – Old and New Testament – but to compliment it as “another Testament to Jesus Christ”. Even more interesting, the Old Testament refers to the Old Covenant. This covenant being the Mosaic Law, the Levitical Priesthood and the dealings of God with Man through the Prophets of Israel. The New Testament being the New Covenant where Christ comes in mortality to live a sinless and perfect life, to take upon himself the sin of the World, to redeem mankind from their fallen state, to provide mortal man the ability to move from mortality and into immortality. Much like how the New Covenant did not replace the Old Covenant, but to fulfill the Old Covenant as to a coming redeemer and messiah, so also the Book of Mormon is another Covenant of Jesus Christ that helps us understand the Old and New Covenant, their purpose and reason as to how our loving Heavenly Father guides and directs his children in times of old as well as in our own time.
It is even more evident that President Benson addresses much of the critic’s arguments as to the Book of Mormon. Some have proclaimed that the Book of Mormon is being the “fulness of the gospel” but that much of the doctrines of the Mormon Faith is not found within the text of the Book of Mormon (i.e. Celestial Marriage, Priesthood Authority). Not only that, but most critics even discount and attempt to prove that the Book of Mormon is nothing more than a deceptive work produced by a person who is and never was a Prophet of God. And, how it does not teach true Biblical Doctrines.
The reality is that these critics have hardened their hearts against the plain and precious truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Their hearts are hardened in unbelief that a loving Heavenly Father could not have communicated with other nations. They view and believe that the Bible is without error, while turning their backs on recent scholarship that has proven how much of the Old and New Testament is not truly reflective of the original context of those writers who had received direct revelation from the Lord. Much of this deception has come from a long established tradition of closed canon. A canon based upon man’s authority as to what is and is not considered the word of God.
Conclusion – my own personal thoughts
The question I ask here to ever member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (a question that I myself must answer as well) is this: Have we treated the Book of Mormon lightly? Furthermore, have we approached it without sincereity and humility? My answer to this question is Yes.
It is my own personal hope and prayer that Heavenly Father will rekindle a love and passion for the Book of Mormon as I begin to not just merely read the pages, but study them prayerfully, sincerely and with an open heart. It is only then that this sacred work will become my own keystone in my personal life.
As always, your thoughts, comments, questions, suggestions and concerns are always welcomed here.
March 17, 2009
Changing format and focus
Over the past month, I have taken on a couple new responsbilities. One of those is a new job working nights. Typically, I work four nights a week. Unfortunately, these nights are ten hour shifts. This is taking some serious schedule juggling here. Another is the ability of going back to school. Thus, my time between Church, Family, Work, School and writing, I have little time to devout to any serious “apologetic” formats that I originally had envisioned for this particular blog.
With that said, the only thing I have come to the conclusion of, and after much prayer, I am refocusing the contents of this blog for more inspirational articles. This will come from reading the Ensign articles, General Conference Articles, The Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price.
These articles are not intended to prove the doctrines of Mormonism, but to provide inspiration for those within the LDS faith a more applicable material to contemplate. The reason why I say that these articles are not intended on proving Mormonism is one single factor. When getting caught up in Apologetics, one looses sight of the most significant importance. It is not whether I believe it to be true that will convince someone, but it is rather when someone comes before Heavenly Father with sincerity in their heart, humility in their thoughts and mindset and seek out Heavenly Father’s will and intent that will convict and convince the one who is seeking. For those who disagree with this, you have that right to disagree and you have your reasons and beliefs.
Essentially, I am stepping away from apologetics and focusing more on the articles that I feel are the best suited articles for this blog.
Thank you to those who continue to read this blog and for those who posted your comments.
I look forward to more meaningful and wonderful discussions here on this blog pertaining to how we as LDS believers live our lives according to the Will and desire of our Heavenly Father.
March 1, 2009
Jesus is God – How is this possible?
Driving home from work, this morning, I happened to tune the radio over to AM 820. A local Christian radio station. Mindless listening to the ending of one broadcast and then some commercials. It was not until I pulled into the apartment complex where I lived that they had a “filler of airtime” in which someone was giving a commentary on a particular passage of scripture.
While I am unable to recall this particular Biblical passage, what struck me was the reference the commentator used. Namely, Jesus is God. Anyone who believes that Jesus is God is saved. The commentator then poised this question to those listening. Whenever someone comes to your door to hand you some reading material, ask them one question. Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God? This question is one that is not to be taken lightly.
According to ChristianAnswers.net, we find the following answer to the affirmative:
Jesus Christ is most definitely God. He created Adam and Eve, the first man and woman, in his image. He is the Creator of the universe. The Bible says, “Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made” (John 1:3). This includes all the stars, all the original animals and plants, and even the angels (Colossians 1:15-17).
It is important not be confused. God did not create Jesus. Jesus is God, and he has always existed.
Jesus proved that he is God by doing many things that only God could do. These are called miracles. He made dead people alive. He walked across a great lake. He made blind eyes see perfectly again. He healed deadly diseases with a word.
Another website relates this:
He is referred to as God a number of times (e.g. John 20:28). Paul can declare, “in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form” (Colossians 2:9). John says, “He (Jesus) is the true God and eternal life” (1 John 5:20). In the Old Testament he is called “the mighty God” (Isaiah 9:6) the same two Hebrew words used of God in a number of places (e.g. Isaiah 10:21; Jeremiah 32:18).
Now, I do not disagree with the fact that Christ is the God of Israel, and that He did create all things. However, where I disagree with is the fact that Christ being God brings about a contradiction of doctrinal beliefs within the modern Evangelical Christian community. That contradiction is based upon the Nature of Christ.
If Christ is truly God (as modern Christianity teaches) then God does possess a body of flesh and bone. Why? Because Christ rose on the third day with a body of flesh and bone. He ministered for forty days among his disciples with a resurrected glorified body and then ascended into heaven with this resurrected glorified body of flesh and bone.
Yet, Christians deny this aspect of the doctrine – not the bodily resurrection of Christ, but that God has a body of flesh and bone.
The question I ask, if Christ is God and yet God does not have a body of flesh and bone, how then could Christ be God? A question that stumbles many Christians because it brings out the contradiction within their own doctrine that they claim is based upon scripture.
Now, yes, I did say that Christ is the creator of heaven and earth, of Adam and all humanity. Yes, I also did state that Christ is the God of Ancient Israel in the Old Testament. However, Christ may have been the God of the Old Testament, he is not the Most High God, nor is he the Father.
Granted, yes Christ had always declared his divinity. What most Christians fail to take into account was that not only did Christ declare his divinity, but that he declared his divinity, not as God, but as the Son of God. Meaning that if Christ is not God, but the Son of God, that means he is separate and distinct from the Father. Another doctrine that modern Christians disagree with, yet is very real and biblical.
So, whenever we are challenged by Modern Christian thinking, and if you are ever asked, do you believe that Christ is God? Our answer should be based upon the reality and truth of Scripture and on our own personal testimony – Jesus Christ is the Son of the Living God, Savior and Redeemer.
Any person who challenges this and says that this is false doctrine do not know the truth of scripture and the reality of Christs true nature and divinity.
January 31, 2009
Rebuttal to Sean Hyland – Response to Mormon Objections
It is always interesting to come across arguments that seemingly disprove some of the Latter-day Saint doctrines. Articles that are supposedly written to respond to any potential and existing rebuttals that come forth from those of the Latter-day Saint apologists. This is one such article that I felt compelled to deal with at length and provide my own point-by-point refutation. The following article, in its entire context, is found here: Response to Mormon Objections to Original Sin. This article is written by the same author who wrote Mormonism, Original Sin, and the Ancient Heresy of Pelagianism. The latter article that I had provided a rebuttal to on December 23, 2008; entitled Mormonism and Original Sin. As of to date, this author has not yet commented, nor provided any objective discussion as to his article and the many false assertions brought to light in regards to the doctrines of Mormonism and Original Sin. Also, from the nature of his dialogue that I have had with him and his own comments to others, he is a member of the Roman Catholic faith.
Whether or not he adhere’s to the Roman Catholic faith as Orthodox Christian doctrine, I am not sure and will not conclusively determine. Despite this question of his faith and doctrinal position, what I can deduce is how he misrepresents true LDS Doctrine and further builds up straw man arguments in an attempt to provide evidence as to how Mormonism is false because of these assumptions made. So, we will look at each objection he makes and provide sound reason to what truly is LDS Doctrine and what is not.
Introduction
The following is a refutation of some objections Mormons (and other non-Christians) make in regard to the doctrine of Original Sin.
Therefore, the following is a true rebuttal and examination of these objections Sean proposes to refute. Let the reader draw their own conclusions.
Objection #1:“The Fall was not a sin because God planned it”
The first objection we deal with essentially says that the Fall of Adam was planned from God by the start, so Adam is not to be blamed for it. In fact, say the Mormons, the Fall was even necessary for man to “progress” towards divinity.
There are two problems with this assertion. The first problem is the assumption Hyland makes regarding those who object to the doctrine of Original Sin, do so because God planned it and Adam is not to be blamed for it. The second problem is another assertion that has nothing to do with the first assertion: Namely, how the fall was necessary, according to Mormonism, for man to progress towards divinity. Let us look at how he deals with this first objection – and how he attempts to examine it.
Here are some quotations from “The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual”
“It was Eve who first transgressed the limits of Eden in order to initiate the conditions of mortality. Her act, whatever its nature, was formally a transgression but eternally a glorious neccesity to open the doorway to eternal life. Adam showed his wisdom by doing the same. And thus Eve and ‘Adam fell that man might be’ [2 Nephi 2:25].”Some Christians condemn Eve for her act, concluding that she and her daughters are somehow flawed by it. Not the Latter-day Saints! Informed by revelation, we celebrate Eve’s act and honor her wisdom and courage in the great episode, called the Fall…Brigham Young declared, ‘We should never blame Mother Eve, not the least’ (in Journal of Discourses, 13:145). Elder Joseph Fielding Smith said: ‘I never speak of the part Eve took in this fall as a sin, nor do I accuse Adam of sin…This was a transgression of the law, but not a sin…for it was something Adam and Eve had to do!’ [i]Doctrines of Salvation, 1:114-15]” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 730.)
So, what these quotes are essentially saying is: Adam and Eve did not rebel against God, they did not sin in eating the forbidden fruit, because God planned it all. It was something they had to do!
But did God really plan that it must happen, or did He merely allow it to happen?
(Note: the article is wrong also in claiming transgression does not mean sin. Transgression is sin. This will be covered in Objection #2 below.)
Actually, Hyland only uses one quote from one source. This is very problematic on two fundamental premises. First, he says that it is from “The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual” but does not link to it or show what page it is on. This, however, is dangerous because one must always give credit where credit is due. Also, within this first issue of not properly citing the source, he does not explain who is speaking. Third, Hyland makes a very grave mistake of actually not checking the original source of this quote. Essentially, he is taking a quote from a secondary source and making it seem as it is from a primary source. If he had actually done some research, he would have found that the quotation that he had taken from The Pearl of Great Price Student Manual, one would find that quotation is taken from the following Ensign Article The Great Plan of Happiness by Elder Dallin H. Oaks that appeared in the November 1993 edition.
The other problem with this is that the quotation he uses is taken out of context, both from the secondary source and from the primary source. In doing so, he builds up a simple “strawman argument“. Meaning, Hyland makes a misrepresentation of actual LDS Doctrine on the fall and then attempts to prove how his misrepresentation is false and easily dealt with:
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed. This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person.
Person A has position X. Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X). Person B attacks position Y. Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
Hyland’s subsequent and immediate conclusion is two-fold: So, what these quotes {which is only one quote that is a secondary source containing 2 additional quotes and one scripture reference} are essentially saying is: Adam and Eve did not rebel against God, they did not sin in eating the forbidden fruit, because God planned it all. It was something they had to do!
Therefore, when we look at Genesis 2 and 3, we notice the following: 1) Lord God creates a Paradasical Garden; 2) God creates man outside of the Garden, from the dust of the land; 3) God plants and causes every form of vegatation to grow, manner of trees to grow and plant two significant trees – the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil; 4) God takes man and places him in the Garden to have dominion over the Garden and gives him a commandment. In light of all this, a question arises out of this: Why would God plant a Tree in the Garden of Eden then command man not to partake of the fruit? This is the heart of the debate regarding Original Sin. And, on several occasions, I have asked an even more significant question in regards to this, and one that Hyland raises: Did God plan the Fall to happen or did he allow the fall to happen? This question is based upon the understanding of God’s permissive will and God’s active will. On the one hand, there are things in our human experience and life that God allows to happen for one reason or another. There are other experiences in human history and life where God actively causes something to happen. Both are based upon the understanding that God is Omniscient and raises an even more interesting question – If God is omniscient, did he know that the fall were to happen? And, if he knew that the fall were to happen, did he allow it to happen because of this knowledge, or did he cause it to happen because of this knowledge? Unlike Hyland, my answer to this question is that the Fall of Adam was both, an active will of God and based upon God’s permissive will.
To understand this, we go back to the theory of Cause and Effect. The Fall was the effect of transgression. Thus, in order for the fall to be an effect of transgression, we must determine what the cause of this transgression was. Eve acted upon the seduction of the Serpent who caused her to question the commandment of God. Thus, her actions to succumb to the temptation was an effect and not a cause. Thereby, because her decision was an effect, the cause of that decision is partly based upon the temptation of the Serpent. And, because the fall was an effect of a cause, and part of that cause was the temptation to violate the commandment of God, we look to the Serpent and not the Woman. Genesis 3:1 relates this – Now, the Serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the Garden? Hyland would agree that the Serpent was used by Satan, and that there is no dispute in regarding to this understanding. Yet, how did a Serpent tempt Eve? How was it that an animal was used to tempt humanity? The Apocolypse of Moses provides some understanding in light of this account in Genesis:
xv 1 Then saith Eve to them: ‘Hear all my children and children’s children and I will relate to you
2 how the enemy deceived us. It befell that we were guarding paradise, each of us the portion
3 allotted to us from God. Now I guarded in my lot, the west and the south. But the devil went to Adam’s lot, where the male creatures were. [For God divided the creatures; all the males he gave to your father and all the females he gave to me.]xvi 1 And the devil spake to the serpent saying, Rise up, come to me and I will tell thee a word
2 whereby thou mayst have profit.” And he arose and came to him. And the devil saith to him:
3 “I hear that thou art wiser than all the beasts, and I have come to counsel thee. Why dost thou eat of Adam’s tares and not of paradise? Rise up and we will cause him to be cast out of paradise, even
4 as we were cast out through him.” The serpent saith to him, “I fear lest the Lord be wroth with
5 me.” The devil saith to him: “Fear not, only be my vessel and I will speak through thy mouth words to deceive him.”xvii 1 And instantly he hung himself from the wall of paradise, and when the angels ascended to
2 worship God, then Satan appeared in the form of an angel and sang hymns like the angels. And I bent over the wall and saw him, like an angel. But he saith to me: “Art thou Eve?” And I said
3 to him, “I am.” ‘What art thou doing in paradise?” And I said to him, “God set us to guard and
4 to eat of it.” The devil answered through the mouth of the serpent: ‘Ye do well but ye do not eat
5 of every plant.” And I said: “Yea, we eat of all. save one only, which is in the midst of paradise, concerning which, God charged us not to eat of it: for, He said to us, on the day on which ye eat of it, ye shall die the death.”xviii 1 Then the serpent saith to me, “May God live! but I am grieved on your account, for I would not have you ignorant. But arise, (come) hither, hearken to me and eat and mind the value of that tree.”
While this Old Testament Pseudepigrapha is disputed as to its authenticity, the reality is that it is the Greek version of The Life of Adam and Eve, and is one of six differing language variant copies:
The text survives in six languages: Greek, Latin, Armenian, Georgian, Slavonic, and Coptic (only small fragments remain of this version). Most scholars agree that the text was written originally in Greek and that all of the six versions stem from some form of Greek vorlage. But it should be emphasized here that the Greek manuscripts that we now possess are not witnesses to this putative Greek original. The present Greek material has undergone considerable redactional activity and should not be considered a better witness to the original form of the text than any of the other forms. Yet it should also be underscored that the text-critical work has hardly begun on this document and almost any conclusions about such matters must be considered provisional and exploratory.
It is the purpose of quoting from this work of antiquity as to an illumination of how guile Satan was in his approach to the Woman, and then subsequently to her part in deceiving Adam. When one investigates the six language variants, they all tend to agree as to who entered the serpent and by what manner of temptation was employed for the effect of Adam’s transgression and fall from Paradise. Not only is this idea collaborated by the textual variants of the Life of Adam and Eve, but John Milton’s Paradise Lost: Book 1 Summarizes this essential thought and that of Satan’s fall itself:
This first Book proposes, first in brief, the whole Subject, Mans disobedience, and the loss thereupon of Paradise wherein he was plac’t: Then touches the prime cause of his fall, the Serpent, or rather Satan in the Serpent; who revolting from God, and drawing to his side many Legions of Angels, was by the command of God driven out of Heaven with all his Crew into the great Deep.
The prime cause of Adam’s fall and disobedience – Satan, the father of Lies. This, then begs the question, why would Satan enter in a Serpent and tempt man to transgress the law? It is upon thinking about the answer to this question that we must duly note that the Genesis text provides an assumption that Adam and Eve had not possessed a knowledge of Good and Evil in the sense we have come to understand it in our sense and definition. Regardless, it is safe to presume that because God is not the author of sin, he is not the cause of sin. And, if God is not the cause of sin, then that would leave either Satan the cause of sin or Adam the cause of Sin. Looking at the theory of Cause and Effect, understanding that the transgression of Adam, the sin Adam committed by partaking of the forbidden fruit, we know that he could not have caused himself to sin. Meaning because Adam is not the source of the cause, that leaves Satan as the source of the cause. Which brings us to the doctrine of Satan’s fall. And, what possibly caused Satan to fall? Pride was the cause of Satan’s rebellion against God. This is something that traditional Jewish doctrine, Islamic Doctrine, Christian Doctrine and Mormon Doctrine have in common. While all four disagree as to how and why Satan became proud and fell, taking 1/3 of the host of heaven with him, the reality is substantiated in Revelations 12: 7-9
And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels, and prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven. And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Regarding this, John MaCarthur states this in a sermon entitled – The Fall of Satan:
Sin came into the world through Adam and Eve. But who brought it here? Who brought the sin here? Chapter 3 Verse 1; the serpent did, the serpent did. Who is this reptile? We discussed in some length the Hebrew terms that indicate this is probably an upright reptile, a beautiful creature that was cursed to “crawl on its belly.” So prior to the curse, it must have been upright. This reptile was more than just an animal. It was an animal; it’s related to the “beasts of the field.” Certainly belongs in that category, according to Genesis 3. But penetrating somehow into this animal was a supernatural personality. This — this serpent, this dragon is identified as Satan in Revelation 12:9 and Revelation 20 Verse 2. It says that the dragon was the “devil and Satan.” The serpent was the “devil and Satan.” He is identified all through scripture as the malevolent arch-enemy of God and all those who are God’s. He works to deceive people; to incite disloyalty to God and God’s truth, and to turn God against his people. Those are the things that he does. But he is totally under the sovereign control of God, and can only do what God allows.
Therefore, once again, we go back to the theory of cause and effect and realize that because Adam did not cause his transgression of the law, nor did God cause the transgression of the law, that leaves Satan as being the one who caused the transgression of man. Now, because Satan already possessed a sinful disposition, it is logical to conclude that sin originated within the heart and motive of Satan himself. Meaning, Adam could not have had a disposition to sin because the examination of the text shows that Adam and Eve did not possess that knowledge. Which, brings up another important factor in this discussion as to whether or not Sin and Transgression are synonomous to Adam and Eve and the Fall of our First Parents, and whether Hyland’s assertion is correct with his conclusion that because Adam transgressed the Law, it is wrong to say he did not sin against the law. The other aspect of this centers around Knowledge. According to Strongs Concordance, the Hebrew word is Yada’ (pronounced yaw-dah’) and means to know, to discern, to distinguish, determine, to know by experience. When we look to the LXX (Septuagint) we find a difference between this Greek translation of the Old Testament to that of the Masoretic Text Translation of the KJV:
2:9 And God made to spring up also out of the earth every tree beautiful to the eye and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of learning the knowledge of good and evil.
According to the LXX, it was not just a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, but it is a Tree of Learning the knowledge of good and evil. How does one learn something? Either through study, observation and various tests; or, through experience. Hence, Adam and Eve did not possess an understanding of Good and Evil. They may very well have had an Idea based upon the reason behind the Commandment of God, but they did not understand it from a personal experience as to what was good and what was evil. It is much like telling a toddler that the burner on the stove is hot. They may have the understanding that the burner is hot when turned on and therefore not to touch it, but until they personally experience the pain associated with touching a hot burner, they have not possessed a knowledge of pain until they experience it for themselves. This is the true position of the LDS doctrine on the fall of man. It is the position that Hyland refuses to truly respond to objectively and intellectually. A position that most Anti-Mormon’s are (From my own personal experience) unwilling to attempt to understand. Whether they agree with the doctrine in the end or not, is not for me to say. Yet, getting back to this, the position that is presented in that Adam transgressed the commandment of God and not sinned against the commandment of God is substantiated on the fact that Adam had not experienced the effect of sin to fully understand the consequence of the choice. In short, Adam did not possess a cognitive understanding of Good and Evil.
Therefore, just as much as he could not have caused his own transgression, the fact remains evident that his transgression was an effect to the cause of temptation and the sin of Satan. Meaning, Adam sinned in that he gained the knowledge through experience, but not because he possessed the disposition to sin, but because he went beyond the bounds of the commandment. Thus, in this instance, Adam did not sin, but transgressed. In short, just as the cause of Adam’s transgressing the commandment not to partake of the forbidden fruit originated in Satan’s sinful desire to destroy humanity, Adam’s sin was the end result of his transgression. This is based on the fact that before the transgression, Adam did not possess a sinful nature prior to transgressing the law. Logically implying that if he did not possess a sinful nature prior to his fall, means that he could not sin as a result of this sinful nature, but that his sinful nature was a result of him transgressing the law. Another way of looking at this is that Adam’s sin is the effect of his cause – the transgression of the law. This is what Dallin H. Oaks referred to, this is what Joseph Fielding Smith referred to.
The challenge for Hyland is to provide a more objective reasoning as to how his interpretation and refutation of this first objection stands in light of the material presented here. Again, it is up to the reader to draw their own conclusions after reviewing the evidence provided. And, while there is much more that needs to be addressed regarding Hyland’s objections as to Mormon’s response to Original Sin, suffice it to say that when we get into the actual understanding of how important it is to see things in their original context sheds a greater light of understanding as to what manner and reasoning some conclusions are not what they are being presented to mean. Here, Hyland establishes a weak straw man argument based upon weak presuppositions and unsubstantiated assumptions that he concludes to be refutation to objections raised against his arguments.
First, no where in the quotation Hyland uses states that Adam and Eve did not rebel against God. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon Hyland to show how he draws this conclusion as to the assertion he makes. The reality is that when you carefully read the quotation, one will see that it does refer to transgression and sin. However, when we look at the context of the article in question, we find this statement: Neither Adam nor Eve partook of the fruit because they loved Satan more than God or because they wanted to rebel against God. Thus, if this is what Hyland is referring to, then why did he not mention this within the appropriate context? One can’t make a conclusion without providing a reason for that conclusion. Yet, one may say that this statement does seem to support Hyland’s assertion of saying that Adam and Eve did not rebel against God. However, that is not a solid conclusion one could draw upon. A careful reading of the statement shows in what manner and language the understanding is being presented. It is not that Adam and Eve did not Rebel against God, but it is saying that Adam and Eve did not rebel against God out of a desire of wanting to. Meaning, Adam and Eve did not presumably wake up one morning and said “Let us just partake of the forbidden fruit”. Yes, they ultimately chose to rebel against that which God commanded them not to do, but the act of that rebellion was due to deception and temptation.
This is very important to understand. Name one instance where someone wanted to sin out of sheer desire without any temptation being presented to them. What I am saying here is that we don’t run a red light because we felt like it, but we run a red light because we feel that stopping a vehicle in the middle of the intersection will prove quite dangerous. We don’t go out and say, ‘who can I gossip about now today?’ We don’t curse someone for cutting us off because we felt like it. Temptation is a factor when it comes to sin, and when we look at the Fall of Adam and Eve, we find that temptation begins with doubting the word of God. Thus, Hyland attempts to make an unsubstantiated claim that his quote shows that Adam and Eve did not rebel against God. This is a false perception and interpretation of the position that is postulated and supported by Elder Dallin H. Oak’s talk.
In light of the above discussion, we now look at his second assertive conclusion he makes. This is based upon the understanding of sin and transgression. Both of these words are synonymns and are used interchangeably. Yet, while they both carry the same connotation, there are differences within their definitions. According to the Online Etymological Dictionary, we find the following definitions and history of these two words:
Transgression: 1426, from O.Fr. transgression (12c.), from L.L. transgressionem (nom. transgressio) “a transgression of the law,” from L. “a going over,” from transgressus, pp. of transgredi “go beyond,” from trans- “across” + gradi (pp. gressus) “to walk, go” (see grade). The verb transgress is recorded from 1526. Transgressor is first recorded 1377.
Sin: sin (n.) O.E. synn “moral wrongdoing, offense against God, misdeed,” from P.Gmc. *sundjo (cf. O.S. sundia, O.Fris. sende, M.Du. sonde, Ger. Sünde “sin, transgression, trespass, offense”), probably ult. “true” (cf. Goth. sonjis, O.N. sannr “true”), from PIE *es-ont-, prp. of base *es- “to be” (see is). The semantic development is via notion of “to be truly the one (who is guilty),” as in O.N. phrase verð sannr at “be found guilty of,” and the use of the phrase “it is being” in Hittite confessional formula. The same process probably yielded the L. word sons (gen. sontis) “guilty, criminal” from prp. of sum, esse “to be, that which is.” Some etymologists believe the Gmc. word was an early borrowing directly from the L. genitive. Sin-eater is attested from 1686. To live in sin “cohabit without marriage” is from 1838. Ice hockey slang sin bin “penalty box” is attested from 1950. sin (v.) O.E. syngian “to commit sin,” from synn (see sin (n.)). Cf. Du. zondigen, Ger. sündigen. Form alt. from M.E. sunigen by influence of the noun.
Thus, when we look at the actual context of this quotation, we find that if Hyland had further provided more information, the reader would discover the following:
Elder Dallin H. Oaks said that the “contrast between a sin and a transgression reminds us of the careful wording in the second article of faith: ‘We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression’ (italics added). It also echoes a familiar distinction in the law. Some acts, like murder, are crimes because they are inherently wrong. Other acts, like operating without a license, are crimes only because they are legally prohibited. Under these distinctions, the act that produced the Fall was not a sin—inherently wrong—but a transgression—wrong because it was formally prohibited. These words are not always used to denote something different, but this distinction seems meaningful in the circumstances of the Fall” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1993, 98; or Ensign, Nov. 1993, 73).Another meaning of the word transgress is “to go beyond established limits or conditions.” Adam and Eve went beyond the limits that would have kept them in the Garden of Eden forever, and in so doing helped provide the opportunity of mortality for all of us.
The difference we find between Sin and Transgression in relation to the partaking of the forbidden fruit is that God declared a commandment – And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of Good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. – Genesis 2:16-17, KJV. We also understand that prior to this commandment, we have the following in verse 9: And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. According to Genesis 2:7 we understand that God creates man from the dust of the ground, breathing into him the breath of life. However, Genesis 2:15, we read how God takes man and place him into the garden and then giving him the commandment.
January 22, 2009
Galatians 1:6-9: Paul’s “Other Gospel” and Mormonism
One of the most perverted forms of Biblical interpretation is that of Galatians 1:8-9. This passage is commonly used by Christian Apologists in their attempt to prove that Mormonism is “another Gospel”.
Therefore, the purpose of this post is to provide understanding as to what the Apostle Paul is discussing within the context of Galatians 1:6-9.
Historically, the epistle was written to Gentile Christians in the Galatian Province. The question here is: was it written to all of Galatia or a particular part of Galatia? This is an interesting question, for, when I had researched into the nature and history of the epistle, there is a dispute as to whether or not the epistle was written to the Northern Province of Galatia or the Southern Province of Galatia. Several sources cite this as a historical background. In one classic commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians by W.M. Ramsey (1851 to 1939) published in 1899, we find this:
The study of this document is encumbered with a great preliminary difficulty. It is not certain who were the persons addressed. While some scholars maintain that the “Churches of Galatia,” to whom the Epistle is addressed, were planted in the four cities of Southern Galatia, Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and Pisidian Antioch, others assert that those Churches were situated in North Galatia. These two opposite opinions are conveniently designated as the South Galatian and the North Galatian Theory.
In his work – A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians , published in 1920 - Ernest De Witt Burton collaborates the nature of the debate as to whether the Epistle was addressed to those Churches in the Northern part of Galatia or the Southern Part of Galatia:
On the basis, therefore, of the Acts narrative, and the evidence of the letter that “the churches of Galatia” to which it was addressed constituted one group founded on the same general occasion, we must exclude any hypothesis that the letter was addressed to churches in both parts of the province, and make our choice between the two hypotheses: (a) that Paul founded churches in northern Galatia on his second missionary journey, and addressed the letter to them and them only, using the term Galatia in its older, ethnographic sense; and (b) that he founded no churches in northern Galatia, and that he addressed his letter to the churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch, using the term Galatia in the political sense.
The importance in understanding to whom this epistle was written is to understand the actual historical context of how and why the Apostle Paul wrote what he wrote to certain peoples and groups. Thus, we must have a basic foundational understanding as to the historical context of the Epistle before any consideration of the textual context is to be discussed and understood. While, I am not going to delve into the nature as to whom the epistle was written too, suffice it to say that we understand the textual context as being this: …Unto the Churches of Galatia. (see Gal. 1:2). Whether these churches were in the Northern part or Southern Part is up for debate and is only mentioned here as a background of historical understanding.
However, not only is the historical context important to understand, but the importance of the content of the message, nature of the message and purpose of the message must be understood and properly interpreted within this historical context. While there is dispute as to the date of the Epistle itself, the overall historical context of the Epistle is two-fold:
1) It is addressing an attack on the Apostleship of Paul and his doctrines he espouse and teach.
2) It is addressing the false teaching by those Jewish-Christians who were convincing the Galatian Christians that they must adhere to the Jewish rituals of circumcision and keep the strict observations of the feasts and new moons as perscribed within the Old Covenant and Judaic Law.
3) Finally, the evidence of Gal. 1:6 shows forth the historical context of how First Century Christians fell into Apostasy due to false doctrines and teachings that others purport to instill upon others.
It is here that when a person truly studies the historical and doctrinal aspects of the Epistle of Galatians, there is the understanding that the modern Christian Apologetic reasoning to use Gal. 1:6-9 as a proof text to refute Mormonism is invalidated on the more evidentiary reasoning as to the actual historical and doctrinal context of the epistle itself. Therefore, let us look at the first aspect of the Epistle.
The Apostolic Authority of Paul under Attack
As mentioned before, the first aspect of the Epistle is the direct attack upon the apostleship of Paul. Burton, in the same work mentioned above, discusses the nature of the attack upon Paul’s Apostleship:
The letter itself furnishes evidence, which is confirmed by 1 and 2 Corinthians, that the apostolic office or function was clearly recognised as one of great importance in the Christian community, and that the question who could legitimately claim it was one on which there was sharp difference of opinion. An apostle was much more than a local elder or itinerant missionary. He was a divinely commissioned founder of Christian churches, indeed, more, of the Christian church œcumenical. With their effort to keep the Christian movement within the Jewish church, including proselytes from other religions, the judaisers naturally associated the contention that the apostolate was limited to those who were appointed by Jesus or by those whom he appointed. With their denial of the distinctive doctrines of Paul they associated a denial of his right to teach them as an apostle. This denial seems to have taken the form of representing Paul as a renegade follower of the Twelve, a man who knew nothing of Christianity except what he had learned from the Twelve, and preached this in a perverted form. This appears from the nature of Paul’s defence of his independent authority as an apostle in the first two chapters of the letter, and indicates that with their theory of a limited apostolate the judaisers had associated the claim that the apostolic commission must proceed from the circle of the original Twelve.
It is the very same attitude of these Jewish-Christians (or Judiazers) that modern Christian Apologists implement in their arguments to deny the Apostleship of the General Authorities of the Latter-day Saint Christian Faith, limiting it to the Original Twelve apostles of Christ. Discredit the authority of the person, one ultimately discredits the nature and purpose of the message being delivered. A very serious charge to make and buy into – one of which a commentator has taken upon themselves to perform:
eternally condemned; The Holy Spirit speaks this through the Apostle Paul, this means that Joseph Smith is accursed and damned to hell for preaching another gospel. And you can only be saved by receiving the True Gospel as The Holy Spirit and faith are only imparted through the preaching of the true Gospel
However, Burton is not the only one to discuss this. Martin Luther, one of the great reformers and quite possibly the father of the Protestant Reformation, provided the following commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians:
In every way they sought to undermine the authority of St. Paul. They said to the Galatians: “You have no right to think highly of Paul. He was the last to turn to Christ. But we have seen Christ. We heard Him preach. Paul came later and is beneath us. It is possible for us to be in error—we who have received the Holy Ghost? Paul stands alone. He has not seen Christ, nor has he had much contact with the other apostles. Indeed, he persecuted the Church of Christ for a long time.”
Who were these people that Luther refers to?
These Jewish-Christian fanatics who pushed themselves into the Galatian churches after Paul’s departure, boasted that they were the descendants of Abraham, true ministers of Christ, having been trained by the apostles themselves, that they were able to perform miracles.
Why I mention this is because of the tone of the Epistle from the outset. Imagine having seen Christ. Being struck down on your way to arrest believers and you are a Jew who perscribed to the Pharisaic traditions. You encounter the Resurrected Christ, spend time with the original twelve, are separated with another into the apostolic calling and go about preaching the Gosple, setting up churches and submitting letters to keep those believers adherent to true doctrines and teachings. Imagine having been informed that your very own testimony, the very calling you hold to as coming from God and you have been separated into by the original twelve is being discredited. How would one respond? The answer is quite clear. Paul is angry and upset. Angry that those defactors are denying his apostolic calling. Using their reasoning and argumentation of their perverted belief that because they are descendents of Abraham, that they are the only sole heirs of Salvation and that in order to be saved, one has to not only be cirucmcised but have to be adopted into the Judiac religion.
This is where the argument of the Christian Apologist falls apart when using Galatians 1:6-9 as a proof text to prove that Mormonism is “another Gospel” that is false and preaching a different Jesus. In fact, there are two main points where this argument falls apart, when properly examined in historical and textual context: 1) Claiming to be the “Chosen” people of God based upon Ancestrial decent from Abraham as those Jews of the First Century rise of Christianity; And, 2) Teaching that in order to be saved, one has to adhere to the circumcision and be adopted into the lineage of Abraham in order to be considered part of the Chosen people of God.
Mormon’s do not claim any judiac traditions to Abraham. Meaning, members of the faith, nor the leaders go about saying that we are “Abraham’s Seed” and therefore are the sole persons of the True Gospel Message. In fact, if anything, we definitely understand what Christ and Paul truly taught regarding who were of the Seed of Abraham:
They answered and said unto him, Abraham is our father. Jesus saith unto them, If ye were Abraham’s children, ye would do the works of Abraham. (John 8:39).
When we look at the context of John 8:39, we find that there is a discussion between the Jews and Christ. In fact, verse 33 says this: They answered him, We be Abraham’s seed…and Christ responding with acknowledgement to their response in verse 37: I know that ye are Abraham’s seed. Yet, sandwiched between 33 and 37, we find that Christ says a very interesting thing: Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. Thus, the context of what Christ says in verse 39 is understood within the context of verses 33-39. What were the works of Abraham? And why is that important to understand in light of Galatians 1?
John Calvin, in his work Commentary on John – Volume 1, discusses the nature of verse 39 and the context of verses 33-39.
39. Abraham is our father. This altercation shows plainly enough how haughtily and fiercely they despised all Christ’s reproofs. What they continually claim and vaunt of is, that they are Abraham’s children; by which they do not simply mean that they are the lineal descendants of Abraham, but that they are a holy race, the heritage of God, and the children of God. And yet they rely on nothing but the confidence of the flesh. But carnal descent, without faith, is nothing more than a false pretense. We now understand what it was that so greatly blinded them, so that they treated Christ with disdain, though armed with deadly thunder. Thus the word of God, which might move stones, is ridiculed in the present day by Papists, as if it were a fable, and fiercely persecuted by fire and sword; and for no other reason but that they rely on their false title of “the Church,” and hope that they will be able to deceive both God and man. In short, as soon as hypocrites have procured some plausible covering, they oppose God with hardened obstinacy, as if he could not penetrate into their hearts.
If you were the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham. Christ now distinguishes more plainly between the bastard and degenerate children of Abraham, and the true and lawful children; (“Entre les enfans d’Abraham qui sont bastars et forlignans, et le vrais et legitimes.”) for he refuses to give the very name to all who do not resemble Abraham True, it frequently happens that children do not resemble, in their conduct, the parents from whom they are sprung; but here Christ does not argue about carnal descent, but only affirms that they who do not retain by faith the grace of adoption are not reckoned among the children of Abraham before God. For since God promised to the seed of Abraham that he would be their God, saying,
I will establish my covenant between me and thee, and thy seed after thee, in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, (Genesis 17:7,)
all unbelievers, by rejecting this promise, excluded themselves from the family of Abraham.
The state of the question therefore is this: Ought they to be accounted Abraham’s children who reject the blessing offered to them in the word, so that, notwithstanding of this, they shall be a holy nation, the heritage of God, and a royal priesthood? (Exodus 19:6; Joel 3:2.) Christ denies this, and justly; for they who are the children of the promise must be born again by the Spirit, and all who desire to obtain a place in the kingdom of God ought to be new creatures. Carnal descent from Abraham was not indeed useless, and of no value, provided that the truth were added to it. For election dwells in the seed of Abraham, but it is free, so that all whom God sanctifies by his Spirit are accounted heirs of life.
What I find strikingly similiar (when I had devoted some time to studying the historical aspect of the Epistle to the Galatains) is that the similar arguments proposed by the Judiazers as to their direct lineage of Abraham is that of those Jews who confronted Christ while he served his earthly ministry and stated the same argument and were proven false. Yet, the question had not been answered - what were the works of Abraham and why did Christ mention to these people that if Abraham were truly their father, they would do the work of Abraham? The answer is very simple and quite obvious. Faith. The work of Abraham was that of faith in the redemptive power of Christ and the salvation of man. This is evident in verse 56: Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.
Paul says this in Romans 4:3 – For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness. What scripture is Paul referring to?
While many interpreters would say that this is evidence of salvation of grace within the Old Testament, a true and more careful reading of the scripture Paul refers to does not talk about works of righteousness, but talks about believing in the promises of God and the covenants God makes with those who choose to enter into a righteous relationship with the Divine:
…the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.” And Abram said, “O Lord God, what wilt Thou give me, since I am childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? And Abram said, Since Thou hast given no offspring to me, one born in my house is my heir.” Then behold, the word of the Lord caem to him, saying, “This man will not be your heir; but one who shall come forth from your own body, he shall be your heir.” And He took him outside and said, “Now look toward the heavens, and count the stars, if you are able to count them.” And He said to him, “So shall your decsendants be.” Then he blieved in the Lord; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness” (Genesis 15:1-6, NASB)
Regarding how Genesis 15:1-6 is referring to Faith as a Work, we look only to James 2: 21 – Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered up Isaac his son on the altar?
We understand that the nature of God calling up Abram to sacrifice his only begotten son was to test his “faith” in God. Because of Abram’s faith, he believed that there was a purpose and reason for such a command. This is where the argument of the Salvation by Grace alone and Salvation of Grace and Sanctification come into conflict. It is this very reason that some Christian Apologists rely so heavily upon the idea and understanding that because Galatians 1:6-9 talk about a Gospel of Works as being another gospel and therefore cursed by God is reason to condemn Mormonism.
However, the reality and truth is, that when we look at the nature of the Gospel of Grace, we see that we are not only called into repentance and embrace the reality of Christ, but that we are to no longer live as we had lived prior to our conversion. Our faith is not just a belief but a life long change to conform our will to following Christ. Thus, when we look at Abraham, we see that God made a promise to Abraham in providing an heir and that Abraham would be the father of an innumerable amount of people. Christ, declared to the false Jewish belief that because they were of the lineage of Abraham, they were therefore Chosen of God as a holy and distinct people, stated that if these Jews were truly the Seed of Abraham, then they would believe in Christ just as Abraham believed in him – Christ being the Lord in the Old Testament. It is the reason Paul, the Apostle, stated in Romans that because Abram believed on the word of God, that he was declared righteous.
What all this means is that when we look at all of the Apostle Paul’s teaching, he taught two fundamental things:
1) Salvation does not come from lineage and ancestrial descent.
2) Salvation is not produced from performance of any type of “Works of Righteousness” as a means to gain Christ’s acceptance. On the contrary, because of Christ’s redemption and saving grace bestowed upon us, we manifest our appreciation and devotion in following after him and because of our faith in Christ, the evidence is the very works produced as a result of that faith and devotion – Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. is the opposite of if a man keep my saying, he shall never see death. The Apostle Paul stated it simply, by their fruits, ye shall know them. Christ declared that a good tree does not bring forth evil fruit and a bad tree does not bring forth good fruit. Works are the fruit of our faith.
Hence, it is this very reason that those Jewish-Christians who claimed that because they were descendants of Abraham, they were the “promised and chosen” seed of Abraham. Thereby, perverting the Gospel of Christ and teaching the Galatian believers that in order for them to be saved, they had to not do the works of righteousness, but had to embrace the traditions and rituals of the Judiac rights of circumcision and be adopted into the “family lineage” of Abraham in order to be considered the chosen of God. Something that the Mormon Faith, Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, and the Prophets and apostles of the Church have never; nor, will ever teach and embrace.
Another thing to note, regarding this, and how it all correlates with the nature of disputing the authority of Paul, is that when these Judiazers taught the Galatians, they were effectively disproving Paul’s teaching and denied Paul as an Apostle of Jesus Christ. They had convinced the Galatian Christians not to accept Paul’s teaching on the basis that Paul’s doctrine was “another gospel”. Something which we will discuss next.
False Teaching of the Jewish-Christians
Previously, I discussed the nature of what these Jewish-Christians were teaching the Galatian Christians as to what they believed to be a “true gospel” as opposed to what Paul, the Apostle taught. And, the more I think about this, the more I am starting to realize the similiarities between these Jewish-Christians and some of the Evangelical Christians that I dialogue with in regards to Mormonism and the doctrines of the LDS Faith.
The first thing we noticed, and one of the later things I had discussed in the prior section, is that the “works” these Jewish-Christians were teaching were the circumcision and adoption into the Abrahamic line. To these people, the belief in the Abrahamic covenant still had a hold upon their mindset and belief system. While embracing this, they assimiliated the ideals of the the Older covenant with that of the newer Covenant of Grace. To this, we look to the original twelve that Christ had called into discipleship and later became known as the Apostles.
All twelve men were Jews. There were no Gentile Apostles that Christ had called to follow after. In fact, the gospel of Grace was first preached in contrast to the long held traditions of the various schools of religious thought within Jerusalem. The Pharisees, Sadduccees and the Zealots.
These twelve men were from the surrounding area of Judea and Jerusalem. Thus, from this Jewish idealism, the Jewish-Christians believed that the Gospel were preached unto them and them alone because of their ideal understanding that the Nation of Israel is God’s Chosen People, and, likewise, because Abraham was promised to have numerous children surpassing the stars in heaven. Therefore, it would be natural that these people would intigrate their Jewish idealisms within the New found gospel of Christ. And, as a result, preached “a different gospel” of Jesus Christ.
Burton expounds upon this thought of how and what doctrine these Judiaziers would use to influence the Gentile Christians, the difference between Peter and Paul and how the original 12 Apostles accepted Paul’s missionary efforts and preaching to the Gentiles:
On the one hand, there were added to the Christian community in Judæa certain men of strongly conservative tendencies who were convinced that Christianity ought to be built strictly on the basis of the Abrahamic covenant, and that the Christian sect ought to differ from other Jewish sects, in particular from the Pharisaic sect, only by the addition of the doctrine of the Messiahship of Jesus, and in no case by any subtraction from the doctrines or requirements of the Old Testament religion as currently interpreted. On the other hand, as the effects of the evangelistic activity of Paul became more manifest and better known to the church at Jerusalem, the real extent and serious nature of his departure from the views and practices now becoming current in the mother church doubtless became more evident. As a result of these two influences the question of the obligation of the Gentile Christians to be circumcised came to an issue in the incident narrated by Paul in Gal. 21-10. The debate which took place on that occasion was apparently limited to this one question of the circumcision of Gentile Christians. The Jerusalem apostles at first urging Paul to conform, at least in the case of Titus, to the views of the ultraconservative element, were at length persuaded to throw their influence on the side of Paul’s view, to give their approval to his way of winning the Gentiles to faith in Christ, and not to insist upon circumcision.
Not only does Burton accept the notion that these Jewish Christians integrated their understanding of the Jewish customs and doctrines, but that they admittedly required and retained the idea of salvation through circumcision. Thus, this brings about the truer understanding of what the Apostle Paul states in Romans 2:24 – 3:1 -
For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written, For circumcision verily profiteth, if thou keep the law: but if thou be a breaker of the law, thy circumcision is made uncircumcision. Therefore if the uncircumcision keep the righteousness of the law, shall not his uncircumcision be counted for circumcision? And shall not uncircumcision which is by nature, if it fulfil the law, judge thee, who by the letter and circumcision dost transgress the law? For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh: But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God. What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?
We know that the understanding of what Paul was relating here is within the context of Romans 2:2-10 where the Apostle Paul discusses those who do the works of Righteousness and how they are blessed because of this and how those who do the works of unrighteousness are in anguish, tribulation, and that these two faucets of human experience are not just among the Jews, but also of the Gentiles. It is here, that teh Apostle Paul says that man will be judged by their works – not their faith. This is not to diminish the Gospel of Grace and the salvation that Christ had brought about, but it is to realize that one can’t say that they confess Christ as their Lord and Savior in word alone, but must confess that Christ is their Lord and Savior in word and deed. Christ saves us from death – both physical and spiritual, however we are held accountable to the things we do in our life that result in either having a blessed life or a cursed life.
Thus, what we discover is the specific doctrine that Paul is contending against, and that of being circumcised in order to receive salvation and redemption. Yet, Burton is not alone in this understanding of what it was Paul was calling the Galatian believers to turn away from. An understanding of the doctrine that was literally causing the Galatian Christians to apostasize from the gospel Paul preached. The Jaimeson, Fausset and Brown Critical Commentary discusses it in this way:
Judaizing teachers had persuaded the Galatians that Paul had taught them the new religion imperfectly, and at second hand; that the founder of their church himself possessed only a deputed commission, the seal of truth and authority being in the apostles at Jerusalem: moreover, that whatever he might profess among them, he had himself at other times, and in other places, given way to the doctrine of circumcision. To refute this, he appeals to the history of his conversion, and to the manner of his conferring with the apostles when he met them at Jerusalem; that so far was his doctrine from being derived from them, or they from exercising any superiority over him, that they had simply assented to what he had already preached among the Gentiles, which preaching was communicated, not by them to him, but by himself to them {Paley}.
Turning to Martin Luther’s Commentary, we further read his comments as follows:
Their objection to Paul’s Gospel is identical to that recorded in the fifteenth chapter of the Book of Acts to the effect that it was not enough for the Galatians to believe in Christ, or to be baptized, but that it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses, for “except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.” As though Christ were a workman who had begun a building and left it for Moses to finish.
The more one studies this epistle, one begins to understand that the context (both historically and contextually) is not about the denial of accountability and being obedient to the Gospel of Christ, but it is about the denial of promoting and preaching the nature and custom of Circumcision as being the ordinance to secure one’s salvation. In other words, it is specifically against the doctrine of circumcision that the Apostle Paul refers to as being “another Gospel”. In this light, the accusation that Mormonism is “Another Gospel” according to Galatians 1:6-9 is a fallacious argument having no foundational support on this. It further exposes the error of the critic who uses Galatians 1:6-9 as a proof text against Mormonism and against the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. In short, Galatians 1:6-9 actually supports the Latter-day Saint position more so than the modern Evangelical Christian would presume it to support their own position. The observation on this latter statement is self-evident.
1) Judiazer claims that in order to secure one’s salvation in Christ is to become adopted into the Abrahamic Covenant and be Circumcised according to the manner in which Moses was commanded to be circumcised.
Christian believers today say something to the effect: In order to be saved, one only need to make a confessionary statement through prayer and accept Christ in their heart and life. Anything added to this; baptism, laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, obedience to Christ and the commandments of Christ – are but another gospel. On the contrary, even Satan and the demons believe in Christ, does this mean they are saved? Some athiests are adherents to good works of human service and devotion, does this mean they are saved? The reality is that Salvation is first and foremost by and through Jesus Christ. Man can’t in anyway redeem himself from the fall. Yet, once redeemed from his sins, man has an obligation to turn from his natural tendencies, former beliefs and subjugate them to follow after Christ and live in a manner where the power of redemption is manifested through them. Christ, Paul and the scriptures are consistently clear that men will be judged, not on their faith, but upon their deeds in this life. Something Christians (when it comes to the differences between Mormonism and modern Evangelical Christian teaching and dogmatics) scoff at, yet turn and teach as evidence of one’s faith and reason for the hope of Salvation that lies within the follower of Christ.
Evidence of Apostasy:
The Epistle to the Galatians is strong evidence for doctrinal apostasy. Something that Christian Apologists disagree with when it comes to the Latter-day Saint statement and belief that Early Christianity had gone into a state of apostasy, the power of the Priesthood having become corrupt and ultimately removed from the earth.
Not only was Paul contending for his reason and calling as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, combating the false doctrine of Circumcision, but that he recognized the reality and severity of the false doctrine having come into the belief of the Galatian Christians and caused them to turn from the Gospel of Christ.
While some would agree that this is specific to the reference of those Churches in Galatia, the reality is that we do not have any reference or source as to whether or not the Christians in Galatia turned back to the true Gospel of Christ or if they had completely abandoned the gospel of Christ for the more Judiac perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No matter, the fact is, Paul recognized that these believers were falling away from the pure gospel of Christ.
This apostasy was due to three factors: First, the doubt as to Paul’s authority as an Apostle (Which we discussed first); Second, declaring the Gospel that Paul preached as being contradictory to that which the Jewish-Christians believed and accepted as the true Gospel, declaring that their doctrines come from the original Twelve whom were Jews as well and Paul, only being an emmissary of the Original Twelve; and Thirdly, influence of the Galatian’s own cultural, ethnic and previous paganistic belief system.
A serious inquiry of the Epistle to the Churches of Galatia shows forth that the reality of doctrinal apostasy was very real. Why would Paul contend for his authority of Apostleship, defend his teaching and declaring that it is the same gospel as that of the original Twelve in Jerusalem and call the Christian believers in Galatia to repentence and back into the true gospel of Christ?
Final Thoughts and Testimony
The overall historical and textual context of the Epistle to the Galatians shows that the reference to “Another Gospel” is not a reference to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but it is a reference to the false doctrinal teaching that in order for a Gentile Christian to be saved, they had to accept the custom of circumcision and be adopted into the false ideal of the “Chosen” lineage of the Abrahamic Covenant. There is no evidence, in light of this investigatory study, supporting the modern Christian interpretation of Galatians 1:6-9 as to Paul referring to Mormonism, Joseph Smith and the coming forth of the Restoration of the Gospel. It is actually on the contrary that Galatians 1:6-9 is in support of the Latter-day Saint position of how and why there needed to be a restored gospel of Christ. The epistle is a call to repentence of following after false doctrines and traditions and embracing the true gospel of Jesus Christ. What is the true gospel of Jesus Christ?
- We believe that men will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam’s transgression.
- We believe that through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.
- We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are: first, Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; second, Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth, Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
Whether you want to agree with me or disagree with me is up to you. I am only responsible to share what I believe to be true, how it is true and the substantial evidence for that truth.
I, personally, testify to you that Jesus Christ truly is the sole source for our redemption. That by and through Christ, we are saved and have our hope and purpose. That becasue of the Atonement of Jesus Christ, men can truly come to understand the reality of God’s divine plan: A plan to bring about the purpose and reason for our existence. I testify that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is not about confessing Christ as our Lord and Savior, but it is about putting to death the old things and walking in a newness of life. That it is about how we live our life as much as it is about our belief in Christ, Jesus.
I truly have come to a knowledge as to the reality and truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. That it is truly the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ in these last days. That Joseph Smith was truly called of God, and those who declare otherwise, denying him his divine appointment as a Prophet in these last days are much like those Judiazers who denied Paul’s divine Apostleship.
I do testify that the Book of Mormon, and the Church is not “Another Gospel” but The Gospel of Jesus Christ, and the Book of Mormon truly another testimony as to the reality and purpose to Christ’s mission, redemption and the call to repentence.
I say this because it is true, I say it, not because I have a false hope, or have been misled by the General Authorities, I say this because I have tasted the reality of Christ’s atonement, I have tasted the reality of being Born Again. I have tasted the bitterness of giving into false doctrines and presenting them as true doctrines. I have tasted the bitterness of attacking the doctrines of Christ in light of these false teachings that bind men to philosophical meanderings and improper interpretations of sacred scriptures.
I testify that there is a real living Prophet that leads the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and that men are truly held accountable in either rejecting or accepting a True Prophet of God.
I say this with authority and truth and I say it in the name of Jesus Christ, Amen.
January 17, 2009
Because you are Mormon – You are going to Hell!!
What? Are you kidding me? Tell me that this is really a joke and not something a ten year old will say to another ten year old.
The reality is, my wife just got off the phone with her son and found out the reason why he does not want to attend Church anymore is due to his best friend having told him, a few weeks ago, that because he was Mormon, he was destined for Hell.
While I do not agree with someone taking such a serious judgment call that is for God and God alone as their own responsibility, the fact is, in our day and age as members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, our children are facing a very brooding world where the very thought of true religion and true belief in God is growing darker and darker. Men becoming more fascinated with their own lusts and desires. The destruction of families, the attack on the central sacred institution that God himself established in the Garden of Eden – Marriage is being underminded by self-gratifying lust seekers. Even still, because our children are Latter-day Saints, they are facing a world where children from mainstream Christian homes are being taught how to “witness” in ways that are demeaning, judgmental and hateful.
Now, don’t get me wrong. Understandably, it is one thing to stand on the Word of God, stand on the truth and reality of scripture and declare that there is something false, that something is not right and that people need to be repenting before their Lord God Almighty. Yet, it is another thing taken upon one’s self the very authority of condemning someone to eternal punishment that solely and only belongs to God.
This is the pious attitude of Christians these days. This is the attitude of Satan. A rebellious and pious attitude of taking upon themselves to not call someone unto repentance and to come unto Christ, but to declare Because you are a Mormon, you are going to hell. Guess what. Because the parents of this ten year old has quite possibly taught him this, my wife’s son refuses to attitude church on the fear that if he grows in the Truth and Reality of the Gospel of Jesus Christ restored in these last days, that he is buying into this great deception and lie of Satan.
To all Christians: God loves you, Christ loves you, but how dare you possess the audacity and take upon yourself the very mantle of God and decree who is going to heaven and be saved and who is not going to go to heaven but face condemnation.
I want one Christian Believer to prove to me that these words are in the Bible, the Inerrant Word of God:
Ye, and if thou be a Mormon, thou are going to Hell! Show me were in the KJV or any other version that these very words are in the Bible.
Guess what, you will not find it because it does not exist.
January 16, 2009
Update on the J-M.A.R.S Project
In a previous post, I mentioned the goal of launching my first periodical publication – Journal of Mormon Apologetic Research and Studies, the J-M.A.R.S project. The goal was to have the publication ready for e-mail distribution to a handful of select individuals for their feedback on the overall impression of the Journal. From the asthetic aspects to the content, I had hoped there was ample time to accomplish this. Unfortunately, February first is approaching quickly and I have yet to complete the very first article.
I have already completed the entire framework of the publication, but the frequency of how it would be produced and then sent out, the probability of providing a print version of the online version, and the marketing of the perodical were all bottlenecking into two weeks. Let alone, the daunting task of writing the three feature articles and other content.
Bouncing between the idea of developing it as a weekly electronic format, a monthly format or a quarterly format, it was clear that uncertainty had settled in. Uncertain in the respect that the availability of my time and responsibilities in producing the perodical, juggling with the pressing need to continue employment search (which has me at a dead-end, only three interviews and no one is hiring though they are saying they are hiring but then inform you after the fact that they are on a hiring freeze while a banner slaps against the wind saying NOW HIRING is enough to just drive me into frustration), family duties and responsibilities.
Eventually, in fact it was today, that I had decided to launch it March 1, 2009 and produce it 6x a month. This, I figured, will give me ample of time to dink around with it, produce the necessary content articles I have slated myself to research, develop and write – ensuring appropriate proofreading and editing has been accomplished to the best of my ability – and have it ready for delivery via email by March 1.
So, in essence, the launch date is changing from February 1, 2009 to March 1, 2009.
I am offering the first issue of The Journal of Mormon Apologetic Research Studies as a free publication to those interested. The subsequent editions will be at a price of $5.95 per publication (either print or electronic format). There is also a new yearly subscription price donation request of $35.o0 per year. Furthermore, a donation charge of $2.95 per article is requested and would be accessible either email or mailed via USPS.
The electronic version will be in pdf format (at the moment, I am actually creating everything in Word format and that is probably what is taking most of my time in getting the appropriate look for the periodical down).
Anyone interested in reviewing a draft of this are more than welcomed to send me an email to timothy.r.berman@gmail.com. In the subject line, place “preview J-MARS project” and then describe your interest.
And, yes, I am seeking contributors who will be interested in providing apologetic articles for potential publication. As of to-date, I have not produced a formal Submission Guideline for this.
Now, one may be wondering why I am asking for donations regarding this publication. The short answer is this: Can you receive any periodical publication for free? No. Almost all of those publications use these funds for production costs, contributor fees, and usually some carry specific ads that they charge the advertisers a fee to place their ads within the pages of the periodical. Thus, while a small portion of the funds generated will be used as profit, majority of them will be slated for the following costs:
- Contribution pay-outs. An Authors work is selected for publication and they receive payment for their contribution, thus, J-M.A.R.S will be a paying market publication for authors. This fee has not yet been determined. And, at the moment I am not able to offer any payment in lieu of any accepted submissions.
- For those who like the actual periodical in print form, the production of this costs money. Thus, these funds the periodical will generate feed back into the continuation of the production of the print copy of the periodical. I have not fully investigated the overall costs and upon which route I will take to have the actual document printed.
- Acquiring a domain. This answers the question – if it is only retained as an electronic publication, why the cost if few people request a printed copy? Anyone familiar with web publishing understands that a professional looking website costs money, not only to acquire, but maintain. The eventual goal is to move from a WordPress.com Free Blog and into a WordPress.org Blog where the administrative staff will be able to produce a professional looking web presence of the periodical.
- Administrative Costs. Most people (unless they are truly passionate about something – and I am passionate about writing and discussion of Religious doctrines) tend to not work for free. As the J-M.A.R.S project grows, so will the need be to have others hired on to assist in the production and development of the content, production of and the editorial staff needed to handle the submissions that will ultimate result in the generation of this periodical.
- Am I seeking to benefit from this financially? Yes, I am seeking to benefit from it Financially, but that is not the main reason for the development of this idea. Ask any business owner, they will tell you that it is hard work to develop a sound business idea that will be profitable. Most businesses fail within two years. But, yes, entrepreneurs do not start a business because they want to help people or provide assistance or a product and service, they go into business for themselves so that they can be financially independent. Is this going to happen overnight? No, but it will eventually.
This is where I am at. Not where I was hoping to be when I initially sat down and decided to finally produce a periodical and focus on apologetic articles, but I am moving in the direction where I am hoping this takes me.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions, comments or ideas. Remember, if you are interested, please submit an email as stated above and I will be more than happy to reply with a progress of what I have accomplished so far.
January 14, 2009
Journal of Mormon Apologetic Research Studies
Yes, I am finally launching a flagship Newsletter for those who are interested in receiving in-depth apologetic articles to their emails. This can be accomplished one of two ways.
The first, will be through specific article requests. These are individual articles that will either be in a word document format or PDF document format and sent out via email as an attachment. The second will be a monthly subscription based E-Newsletter delivered straight into your email (or, if you prefer shipping via regular Postal Service).
Currently, I have established the following guidelines for donation requests for this newsletter.
A monthly subscription donation request will be $15.00 USD for a 12 month subscription rate. This is for the full Newsletter delivered straight into your email. If you prefer to have a hard copy of this mailed out to you, there is a request of $20.00 USD 12-month subscription rate to help offset the cost of printing and cost of mailing through USPS.
Another way is to request single articles with a suggested donation of 2.50 per article copy emailed directly to your personal email account as a word or pdf document attachment.
The goal is not so much financial gain, but to provide a venue for those interested in publishing articles through the Journal of Mormon Apologetic Research Studies and provide the ability to pay a nominal fee to contributing authors.
I will be forthcoming regarding further information on this project and have slated the first issue to be ready for readership and availability on February 1, 2009.
The donation will be processed through Pay Pal.
January 13, 2009
Christ the Lord – D&C 19:1
There are many titles for Christ. The most commonly known are those we recognize because of familiarity with them. Yet, something simple and profound struck me while attending Sunday school at my local ward services this past Sunday. The instructor was teaching on the lesson: “Behold, I am Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World“. This lesson is the second for 2009 Sunday School program. A study through the Doctrine and Covenants and Church History.
The passage in question is D&C 19:1 states this:
I AM Alpha and Omega, Christ the Lord; yea, even I am he, the beginning and the end, the Redeemer of the world.
What caught my attention is this title – Christ the Lord – and it is something I never really gave much thought too. I agree, Jesus Christ is the Lord and Savior of mankind, but the power this title has goes beyond the designation of who Christ is. The catapult statement from the instructor, regarding Christ the Lord, is how Christ is the transliteration of the Hebrew name Messiah. The greek rendering of Christ is Christios and means “The Anointed”. Not only that, but Luke 2:11 is the only New Testament passage that contains the same phrase as that of D&C 19:1.
Regarding Luke 2:11, one of my favorite Biblical Commentaries – Commentary, Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown states this:
Christ the Lord—”magnificent appellation!” [Bengel]. “This is the only place where these words come together; and I see no way of understanding this “Lord” but as corresponding to the Hebrew Jehovah“
Even more interesting is that when I went to www.biblegateway.com and entered the following keyword search “Christ the Lord” the most common rendering is that of “Christ our Lord”, the first instance is that of Romans 5:21. So, I decided to research the Greek definition of “Lord”.
The Greek word for Lord is Kyrios and is a masculine noun and is defined (according to Strongs Concordance #2962) as follows:
- He to whom a person belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, Lord. – The possessor and disposer of a thing.
- The owner; one who has control of the person, the master – In the state: the Sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman Emperor; A title of honor expressive of respect and reverance, with which servants greet their master. A title given to God, the Messiah.
And, the etymology of the greek Kyrios is Kuros – which means supremacy.
Thus, what all this means is that we have the term Christ defined as the Anointed; or Anointed One and is a transliteration of the Hebrew Messiah. This rendering occured when the Hellenization of the Jewish culture occured and the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew into the Greek (which is now referred to as the LXX, or Septuigant).
It is when we put this together, we literally translate the term “Christ the Lord” as meaning: The Anointed Sovereign Prince. Yet, it is when we look at the Hebrew rendering of the word LORD, we realize the uniquness of this title. Lord in Hebrew is defined as Yehovah, the Existing One. And, the reason I mention the Hebrew rendering of “LORD” is going back to the very fact that the Old Testament was translated from Hebrew to Greek. Furthermore, what we have accomplished here was bringing about the true definition of the phrase “Christ the Lord” as being the following: The Anointed Sovereign Prince Yehovah.
But, let us not stop there. The more I studied this out, the more I discovered that in order for one to be considered “Anointed” in a Hebrew context, one would have to be called to the Priesthood, called to be a King or is a Prophet that is called. Thus, not only do we have The Anointed Soveriegn Prince Yehovah, but we have the full reality of who Christ truly is known as: The Anointed Soveriegn Prince, Prophet, Priest and King Yehovah.
This blew me away. And, the more I pondered this, the more I realized the breadth of this phrase: Jesus, the Anointed Lord of Lords and King of Kings.
The discovery of this kernal of truth is this: D&C is in harmony of the Old Testament and New Testament reality as to Christ’s divinity and authority.
January 8, 2009
The Sum of Our Decisions – Reflections on a message
Eight days into 2009 and already I am finding myself quite busy. The past couple days were spent sick. This past weekend was the marriage of Rebecca and I. Already, this year has started off with significant changes in my life. Also, I have had a couple interviews (still unemployed) and hopefully praying for either to start back with the company that I was laid off from back in November or find a new position with a new company.
Despite all this, I am currently going through and looking at some of the old Ensign articles that are online at www.lds.org. While Rebecca and I enjoy our monthly subscription to the LDS Church’s magazine, there is something about going back and reading some of the past issues where there is a bell of truth. A sense of reality that speaks to us today. One such article inspired this particular blog article. The title is The Sum of Our Decisions and comes from the January 1971 issue, page 21. This brief article was actually from the Spoken Word (Now called The Music and Spoken Word) that is still aired today, and was given by Richard L. Evans.
Evans opens up with a quote by John Ruskin – No one can ask honestly or hope fully to be delivered from temptation, unless he has himself honestly and firmly determined to do the best he can to keep out of it.
Contemplating this thought, the old saying truly does apply within this context: No one is perfect. The kernel of truth, no matter how hard we try, no matter how much we push through and no matter how much we have to bear, the ability to overcome and be perfect is one of the most difficult tasks in life. Yet, this is not talking about perfection, the message is simple – it is talking about how we make choices in our lives and the overall consequences of those choices. Honestly, it is in this simple phrase that our society today needs to hear:
Many who find themselves in trouble and regret say that it was circumstances, or the influence of someone else, or that the blame lies largely outside themselves, which may be true—or partly so. It is true that there are always circumstances and influences outside ourselves. No one lives in a vacuum. We are all played upon by other people. We are influenced by the moral and physical atmosphere in which we live our lives. But there is something else that is also true—that we, ourselves, must make our choices; that we must decide, and take our share of responsibilities for our decisions—for added to all the outside influences are the inner influences—the personal standards, the personal commitment; the determination to do what we shouldn’t do. Ultimately we become the sum of our decisions—the sum of what we decide.
The question I ask myself is this: How many times have I shifted blame to someone else, or something else, without taking responsibility for my actions and the effects of my own decisions? This is a very valid and deep question to ponder.
I bring this up because as the New Year is under way, we all have either: Established our New Years Resolution, working on planning out our resolutions, or have not really considered any New Year resolutions at all.
One profound truth to think about is Doctrine and Covenants 6:33
Fear not to do good, my sons, for whatsoever ye sow, that shall ye also reap; therefore, if ye sow good ye shall also reap good for your reward.
The symbolism of sowing and reaping is nothing new. This idea of symbolism is taught in the Old and New Testaments as well. One passage is Job 34:11
For the work of a man shall he render unto him, and cause every man to find according to his ways.
Another passage is that of Psalm 7:16
His mischief shall return upon his own head, and his violent dealing shall come down upon his on pate.
Regarding Psalm 7:16, we gain a greater understanding how, when one sows it is how they sow and the end result of what consequences transpire. This context is Psalm 7:14-16.
A third Old Testament symbolism of sowing and reaping is contained in Hosea 8:7:
For they have sown the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind: it hath no stalk: the bud shall yield no meal: if so be it yield, the strangers shall swallow it up.
And yet, in the Epistle to the Galatian Church, the Apostle Paul talks about sowing and reaping, specifically how one ought to conduct themselves in regards to their own life. This is contained in Galatians 6:4-10:
But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another. For every man shall bear his own burden. Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting. And let us not be weary in well doing: for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.
Think about this, when one takes total responsibility for their own life, their own actions and their own decisions, there is a certain aspect of being proud of one’s accomplishments. Not in the sense that God is out of the picture, but in the sense of perseverance and being able to look back and say, I set out a goal and accomplished that what I set out. It is on this thought, in my personal opinion, that much of the root causes of depression is a lack of responsibility. Blaming others for our own irresponsibility, or reliance upon others to care for and meet our own needs when we ought to take responsibility to meet those needs we know and understand. A fundamental aspect of psychology where, to fully love and appreciate someone, one must be able to fully love and appreciate your own self. This is called Self-worth, self-esteem, self-sufficiency, self-reliance.
In fact, most of my life, I was searching for others to provide the fulfillment that I needed to provide for myself. I was looking to others to provide the stability that I needed. Provide the happiness I needed. It was a delusion that brought about heartache and disappointment. It was not until I came to the realization that in order for me to be truly happy, I needed to accept myself, needed to rebuild myself and needed to secure myself. Once I started afresh, things started turning around. Slowly, I became happier, successful, able to face the circumstances with new insight and a fresh courage. Overcoming old habitual behaviors, destructive tendencies.
While the critics of Mormonism rail against the doctrines, there is truth in scriptures where, when practiced and lived out, we truly become free.
It is on this note that we turn to one simple passage of scripture that solidifies all this; Helaman 14:30:
And now remember, remember, my brethren, that whosoever perisheth, perisheth unto himself; and whosoever doeth iniquity, doeth it unto himself; for behold, ye are free; ye are permitted to act for yourselves; for behold, God hath given unto you a knowledge and he hath made you free.
We are truly free to act according to our knowledge and understanding. Hence, the fundamental truth of how we ought to learn from our mistakes. If one does not learn from their mistakes, they are destined to repeat the same mistake. As well as it is also said that if we are unable to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat history over again.
Honestly, instead of setting up goals (whether it is to lose weight, exercise, gain financial freedom or to set up new goals) we need to look beyond what it is we want to accomplish. We need to look at our past, the past decisions and how we made those decisions. We need to look at where we fell, where we have made our own detour. Once we have done this, we are better equipped to make sound resolutions that will not only be profitable in our lives but easier to keep and fulfill. Whether it is simple decisions to a whole new paradigm shift and thinking, the reward is great.
In essence, whatever we decide to set out to accomplish this year, we become the sum of our decisions. Meaning, whatever we set out to sow this year, we will inevitably reap – whether we like the consequences or not.
December 30, 2008
A Response to Brad’s Comment
Much like the previous blog article regarding Ambers Comment to my blog article Because you are not a Christian! this article reflects a response to Brad’s recent comment to the very same article mentioned. Unlike the format for my response to Amber’s, this one is more in quotation with my remarks and dialogue following.
What is unfortunate is that most of modern Christian thinking is based upon people like Steve McConkey who dictate what is and is not Christian Doctrine, what is and is not Mormon Theology.
It’s going to be hard to talk with you, Timothy, if you’re going to make such rampant assumptions. What Steve McConkey, or anyone for that matter, thinks has no bearing on what I believe. I know many who feel similarly. So it’s rather assuming to imply that we (Christians who would not include Mormons as such) base our doctrine on what we’ve been told it needs to be by other people. You really have no basis for such an assumption, unless you’ve personally polled every single Christian who doesn’t consider Mormons to be Christian, and asked them why they have certain doctrinal beliefs, and receive an answer that it’s based on what others have told them. I’ll ASSUME you haven’t done that, correct? In that case, let’s not ASSUME what people believe, but rather maybe ask them?
Unfortunately, one does not have to pull what Christians believe regarding Mormonism. All one has to do is a simple Google search on Mormonism and here is what one will find as the top five web sites for such search:
- Mormon Church – www.mormon.org – an official Mormon Website
- Mormonism – Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia – en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormonism
- The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints – www.lds.org
- Mormonism, Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints examined – CARM
- News Results for Mormonism
In fact, on the first page of the Google search page, there are only 2 official web sites that are of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 4 web sites that are ministry oriented (commonly referred to as Anti-Mormon Web sites) towards the Mormon believers and faith, 1 book result link, a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia at www.newadvent.org, 1 link to About.com regarding Mormonism and then a general religion and Ethics web link. What is also an unfortunate understanding is that Brad is actually making his whole premise here on a basis of assumption. No, I do not have to poll every Christian believer regarding Mormonism. What I can do and am doing is speaking from experience. Where do most Christian Apologists and general Christian believers get their information regarding Mormons and the doctrines of Mormonism? Walk into any Christian book store, go to the section entitled Cults/Other Religions and there, you will find books about Mormons and Mormonism. Works like Mormonism 101 by Bill Mckeever who also assists in the Web Content of Mormonism Research Ministry. Matthew Slick’s web site, Christian Apologetic Research Ministry which has articles on a variety of religions and topics, but the most significant is the discussion forums where people of a variety of Christian perspectives and denominations go to “debate” with those of other religions. There is a specific forum for Mormons on a doctrinal level and a second one on a general level. Both have Christian believers going in to “contend for the faith” Most of the conversations – and again speaking from personal experience here because I used to be on those boards as SeattleGhostWriter contending for the faith and attacking the LDS doctrines – in attempt to prove that Mormonism is a false doctrine. Most of these discussions are copy and paste tactics from other web sites or out-of-context quotes used to make a false representation.
Thus, one does not have to poll every Christian believer to know what they consider Mormon Doctrine because majority of those Christian believers receive their presupposed understandings and arguments from such places as that of Research Ministry, CARM, or books that claim to have a Biblical response to the doctrines of Mormonism. What amazes me is that people actually don’t go to the source for information, they go to secondary persons who claim to know more about the beliefs of Latter-day Saints than to the Latter-day Saints themselves. Yes, my statement is generalized, but unlike most of the generalized statements that are perpetuated by those who claim to know about LDS beliefs and doctrines actually really only know what information they are able to glean from others, what they have been told by those who claim to know without actually studying the authenticity of the genuine source they are referring too. Yes, majority of the Christian believers receive their understanding of what is and is not Mormon doctrine from people who claim to know more about the doctrines of the LDS Faith than those who are actual members who have dedicated their lives to follow the principles, to study and to understand the things of God.
People accept the weak arguments of Christian Apologists who use ad hominem tactics to discourage honest intellectual studies of Mormonism and the doctrines. It is this unfortunate syndrome (which I call, spoon-fed apologetics) that is plaguing most sincere lay Evangelical Christian believers.
Do you realize that this is a zero-sum game, that there are many Evangelical Christians who would say the same about Mormon apologists? Will this just be yet another “he said, she said” type of argument, which the “are Mormons Christian” conversations inevitably always lead to? Will your post be just like all the others on the same subject, Timothy?
Actually, this is not about “he said, she said” and it is a nice fallacy attempt at throwing in a Red Herring to remove the nature and heart of the discussion to something else. Essentially, what is happening here is a bordering along the lines of actually taking the discussion of the topic, from the topic to point to the character of the person providing the venue of the topic. What this means is that it is not about how and why, but about whom. Yes, I still stand that people accept the weak arguments of Christian Apologetics because having debated online as a LDS Apologist and then as a Christian Apologists; I have seen the very same arguments hashed out over and over again. Most of the time, the arguments are the same. These arguments I have even employed when I previously attacked the LDS Doctrines. Yes, most of them are weak and are based upon previous arguments made by other people. How many times have you heard the argument that one should never add to the Bible based on Revelation 22:18-19? And this argumentation falls very short and is very weak? Countless times, and yet people still use this type of argument (see my response to Amber who made such a statement). It is actually about what Christian Apologetics claim and the reality of that claim having been built upon a very shaky and weak foundation. Most of these arguments are fallacious, illogical and without any consistency.
By what authority do some of these people have to declare whether or not someone is Christian or is not Christian? To answer this question, we must understand what truly constitutes someone being a Christian.
At which point YOU will now let US know what being a Christian REALLY means, right? Of course, as I referenced earlier, this is a zero-sum game, b/c as often as you try to define the term, someone else with an opposite definition will also try to do the same, so we’re right back where we started, aren’t we? You’ll say your definition is right, someone else will say their definition is right, and so on. There’s no winning.
Very simple to answer: Brad, why not provide us with your definition? I ask this because you stated that someone may have a different definition than that which I had provided. I will await your answer on this one.
A true Christian is one who fulfills the following:
Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. – Moroni 10:32
In fact, you attempt to define a “true” Christian as one who fulfills Moroni 10:32. In that case, it would seem fairly impossible for ANYONE to ever be a “true” Christian. Timothy, do you deny yourself of ALL ungodliness? I would think you’d be OK with defining “sin” as something that is “ungodly”, so do you deny yourself of ALL sin? Me neither. Why? B/c we can’t. B/c as fallible humans, we aren’t even capable of NEVER sinning, thus we aren’t capable of denying ALL ungodliness. If you read the verse carefully and chronologically, God’s grace isn’t sufficient for us UNTIL we are able to do so (”…deny all ungodliness…THEN is his grace sufficient for you…”). As such, if we’re not able to deny ALL ungodliness, then his grace (according to this verse), can NEVER be sufficient for us, b/c we’ll never reach the condition (set forth in this verse) by which it would be sufficient! It’s an impossible claim that the verse is making – unless, of course, one can deny ALL ungodliness. I know I can’t. I would venture to say you would agree you can’t (or at least I hope you’d say that). Who can? If that answer is nobody, then according to the definition you’ve tried to use, NOBODY could be a “true” Christian.
Actually, a true Christian is one who takes up their cross and follow Christ. What does that mean to you? And, according to the Biblical text that Christian Apologists hold to as the authority on God’s word, does not Christ consistently say that we are to abide in him by keeping his commandments? Can we perfectly keep the commandments? Can you perfectly love your neighbor? Love those who despise you? Forgive just as Christ has forgiven? These are the commandments of God, these are what are required of us? Do you not understand the significance when Christ says, when a man looks upon a woman with lust in his heart, he has already committed adultery in his heart? Just because being perfected in Christ is a statement that is used does not mean that it is totally impossible. This idea is hard to those who truly do not understand the doctrine of Sanctification. That is what perfection means, is a daily cleansing of ourselves to conform our will to the will of God. It calls us to an obedient life. A life that is set apart. Not only does Christ mention this, but the Apostle Paul mentions this in Romans 12:1-2. How are we to be a living sacrifice? And, yes, I can’t deny myself of ALL ungodliness, but through the process of walking in obedience, there is substantial strength from Jesus Christ and being able to accomplish and fulfill the Commandments of God. Think about this. If God says that he asks you to move to another country to preach the gospel, and you are so impressed that this is truly what God called you to do, but you have financial obligations you can’t get out of, which is better? follow God’s command or disregard God’s commandments? This is what I am talking about, this is what a true Christian life is all about, not that we are to wake up one day and say “okay, I am going to be utterly, totally and 100% perfect”. This is where the error is, this is where the thinking you have rendered in your response to me logically leads. It is a misrepresentation of what I said and it is taking the entire meaning of what I said here out of context. A common trait of Christian Apologists who disagree, sometimes vehemently against the Mormon faith and Doctrines.
Christian Apologists declare such things in error, but the reality of truth is that the Bible talks of how Christians ought to live their life. How true believers ought to conduct themselves.
Again, zero-sum. The Bible talks about many things. Christian apologists and Mormon apologists differ on what they mean – would you expect any different? You’re saying the Christian apologists are wrong (and you’re Mormon). I’d say the Mormon apologists are wrong (and I’m Christian). Amazing, isn’t it?
How would you understand the Bible in regards to what the Christian duty in fulfilling the commandments of God means? Do you believe in the great commission to go into all the world and preach? Is this not a commandment? And if you don’t preach the gospel message, are you not committing sin? Yes, the Bible talks of many things but the fact is not just a mere “I am right and you are wrong” as you have simply stated, but the evidence demands a verdict. The empirical evidence is this, we are to walk in obedience (sanctification). Do you not deny that our reasonable service to Christ is to abide in Him and learn to walk according to the Will of God? What is the Will of God? Biblically, can you answer from the Bible whether or not we are to be obedient to Christ and follow after the commandments of Jesus Christ? And, can you honestly show how and were Mormon Doctrine on being obedient to the commandments of God are not in line with the Bible? This is the heart of the discussion here because Christian Apologists want to retain the reasoning that Mormons and Mormonism is a belief that man has to earn their salvation. No, what we have earn, if anything, is the ability to grow in our faith, in our liberty and freedom and to choose rightly to allow our faith in Christ to manifest through our works because we will eventually be held accountable for our actions, our words, our very own thoughts. Or, do you not believe this? Do you not believe that the Christian Believer will be judged and that no matter what that Christian believer did in their life, they will stand whole and righteous before God because Christ is holy and righteous and his righteousness is imputed unto us, therefore all we have to do is truly believe. Or, is it believe because God has already granted us to believe? Christians can’t even come to a true consensus on what is the proper doctrine on Salvation.
Because you are not Christian! The modern Evangelical Christian mantra to the Mormons.
Hardly a mantra. I am proud of the name Christian, but if someone were to say they thought I wasn’t one, that’s their issue, not mine. The title “Christian” has no bearing on my salvation – it’s a title. It’s one I’m proud of, but not one that’s necessary for others to believe includes me, for me to be saved. I’ll defend it, b/c I think it’s important, but it has no bearing on my salvation. But as for a mantra, hardly. At least not for me.
Apparently you are the only one that believes this. I say this because when you look at the usage of the Phrase: Are Mormon’s Christians, the evangelical viewpoint is a resounding no because their belief that Joseph Smith is a false prophet because someone quoted someone because someone had pictures of court documents that stated Joseph Smith’s character is of ill reputation. Either that or it is because a Christian Apologist has misrepresented Mormon Doctrine in such a manner where they set up a straw man argument for the sole purpose of showing “what appears to be” true Mormon Doctrine than what really is Mormon Doctrine.
Unfortunately, the remainder of Brad’s comment is merely the same argument dressed up in a different personification. Essentially, it boils down to this one statement: That is your opinion, here is my opinion, so what is the point.
Brad, if that is the premise of your reasoning then what was the point in you actually posting a comment so extensive as this with the same argument dressed in different phrases?
December 28, 2008
I Stand All Amazed – A Favorite Hymn
I Stand All Amazed Hymn 193 -
This has always been one of my favorite hymns of the LDS Faith. The words are simple, truthful and penetrate to the heart. I share this because of the recent moments of reflections of my life. The reality of my belief in Jesus Christ as not just my personal savior, but the true redeemer of all mankind.
This hymn simplifies the heart of faith. Simplifies the heart of truth and it truly expounds upon the simplicity of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
For, I truly stand amazed at the love Christ has offered, the power of the Atonement and the purpose of our life.
December 28, 2008
Because you are not a Christian!
I awoke this morning to a screaming child calling out for her mother. My fiance’s youngest niece has always screamed in her sleep. Most nights, it is not that severe, but there are times when we have to go in and comfort her. This morning was one of those occasions where Angela fussed, crying out for mom. It is heartbreaking.
It was 6:30 in the morning when her screaming woke me. Getting up, I started her breakfast. Oatmeal. Her brother, Keith awoke soon after and then my fiance’s son awoke. While the kids were eating their breakfast, I hopped online and started reading about how Focus on the Family pulled an interview article they had posted. An interview regarding Glenn Beck’s recent published work, The Christmas Sweater. The reason why the article was pulled? Simply put, Glenn Beck is not just a conservative talk show host, but a member of the Latter-day Saint faith. And, the basis for this decision to pull the article from their site? Because Glenn Beck’s faith is not “Christian” according to modern Evangelical and Christian Apologetics.
There is much more information regarding this story that broke on December 22, 2008.
Mormon Times: Focus on the Family Pulls Glenn Beck Article
Another one, from an Evangelical Christian perspective-
Article VI Blog: Bigotry Abounds
As you read these two articles (and much more that is online regarding this), you will find one thing standing out. Steve McConkey, president of Underground Apologetics is quoted as saying that he had not read the book but claiming to have understood the message and that message is suspect because of Beck’s religious affiliation.
Because you are not Christian! is the Evangelical Mantra and attitude towards the Latter-day Saint believers today. This premise is based upon the following:
-
Denial of the Trinitarian doctrine.
-
Acceptance of the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great price as additional testaments to the reality of Jesus Christ and the purpose of God’s plan.
-
Acceptance of modern day Prophets
-
Acceptance and belief in a universal apostasy and a need for a restored gospel of truth.
-
Temple devotion and ordinances that are sacred
-
Salvation by the Grace of God and man’s accountability and responsibility in obedience to the Gospel Laws.
Such teachings, according to majority of the Evangelical Christians, presume that Mormonism is a false religion, a false gospel and it promotes a dangerous doctrine that does not lead one to the true reality of Jesus Christ.
What is unfortunate is that most of modern Christian thinking is based upon people like Steve McConkey who dictate what is and is not Christian Doctrine, what is and is not Mormon Theology. People accept the weak arguments of Christian Apologists who use ad hominem tactics to discourage honest intellectual studies of Mormonism and the doctrines. It is this unfortunate syndrome (which I call, spoon-fed apologetics) that is plaguing most sincere lay Evangelical Christian believers.
Because you are not Christian! By what authority do some of these people have to declare whether or not someone is Christian or is not Christian? To answer this question, we must understand what truly constitutes someone being a Christian.
While it is true that the main definition is that of a person who has a belief in who Jesus Christ is, the reality of his mortal ministry, death, burial and resurrection and the divine providence of the Gospel of Grace; this is more than believing in Jesus Christ. It is not a confession of faith, it is a living faith. What constitutes a Christian? A true Christian is one who fulfills the following:
Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God. – Moroni 10:32
Christian Apologists declare such things in error, but the reality of truth is that the Bible talks of how Christians ought to live their life. How true believers ought to conduct themselves.
Christ himself declares the following: Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect. (Matthew 5:48). The context of this statement is within the scope of the Sermon on the Mount where Christ expounds upon the spiritual aspect of the Law of Moses. How one ought to conduct themselves, bring their thoughts and emotions in check. Being accountable for their actions, thoughts and manner of speech.
The question comes to mind, how does one truly become perfect? It is a question that when Christian Apologists treat Latter-day Saint teaching on Salvation and living a life pleasing unto God, they deny the very essence of truth. This essence of truth is expounded upon by the Apostle Paul. The most significant passage is the symbolism and purpose of Baptism:
Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin. – Romans 6:4-6
Not only does is the necessary ordinance of Baptism symbolic of our recognition of putting to death our former life, rising with newness of life as a testimony to our covenantal commitment to Jesus Christ, but we are also establishing our change to subjugate our lives to that of Christ and the perfect laws of God. These commandments are not necessary to save us, but they are the guidelines to help us live our lives as perfect as we possibly can. Another way of looking at this is by turning to the Apostle Paul’s instructions on how to accomplish this:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the miracles of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. – Romans 12:1-2
How are we to present ourselves as a living sacrifice? By obedience to the commandments of God. Not just the physical act of obedience, but the spiritual aspect of obedience. It is about accountability. It is about living our life as perfect as we possibly can. Through this, fulfilling the commandments of God becomes easy.
Because you are not Christian! The modern Evangelical Christian mantra to the Mormons. The answer I give, is truth: Because I am believe in Jesus Christ and his saving grace and that by obedience to the Gospel of Christ is the true meaning of living according to the principle reality of God’s divine plan is why I am a Christian. Yes, I may not be a Christian according to modern Evangelical Apologists, but I am a Christian by truth and reality.
In what essence and by what authority does someone have to declare that I don’t believe in Jesus Christ? There is no authority that one possesses to know my heart or how God has moved in my life. In order to claim this, one must claim perfect righteousness and divinity that Christ himself possessed. This, my friend is where the danger in such statements like: Because you are not Christian! By whose standards? Man’s or God’s? Apparently, by Man’s definition and declaration.
December 29, 2008
Responding to Amber’s Comment
This is a response to Amber’s recent comment regarding my blog article Because you are not a Christian. I have included her comments in italics and then my responses follow in regular text. Again, this is not official Latter-day Saint doctrines, but my own research and study based upon what I have discovered and are of my own understanding. Also, this is not to belittle anyone’s faith, but to speak truthfully, emphatically and to speak honestly with openness regarding such questions and concerns.
Amber: I don’t believe that your basis for what constitutes a Christian is correct. Simply believing in Jesus Christ cannot make you a Christian – even Satan believes in Christ, but obviously we cannot call him a Christian.
Timothy: I agree with you whole-heartedly. Not only that, but I will be presumptuous here and say that most Latter-day Saint believers would also agree with this idea. Yes, Satan believes in the reality of Jesus Christ, believes in who he was and what he did. However, this is a very weak argument and assessment and here is why. 1) Satan sought to destroy the agency of man and sought the glory of God. 2) Man would be forced into a service of obedience and not allowed to use their own volition. 3) Satan is proud, boastful and crafty where he could mix lies with truth. And, I would go so far to say that there are some Christians who believe in Christ and are not even Christians themselves. In fact, this idea is nothing new and actually in the Bible itself.
The Gospel of John records Jesus Christ saying this:
Of course, this passage is within the context of John chapter 8. What is most interesting is that the passages before verse 12 is regarding the woman brought before Jesus Christ. To understand this, one also has to understand the Levitical Law (or the Law of Moses) regarding a woman caught committing adultery. Adultery was punishable by death. The conversation that Christ has with this adulteress is one that we shall take specific notice of.
Ask yourself this one question. What did Christ mean by ‘go and sin no more’? Did he mean specifically for her to go and no longer fall into sexual transgression? And, if he specifically meant for her to go and no longer commit sexual transgressions, was this a commandment? The answer is simple. He did not say to her “believe on me and be saved” what he said was for her to ‘go and sin no more’. Now, put yourself in the shoes of this woman. You just got pulled from your home. You are guilty of committing Adultery. Yet, instead of having a bunch of people stand around you with stones ready to be thrown at you, they are people who are praying that you come to know Christ as your Savior. And, this man stands before you and says simply; “Amber, go and sin no more,” Which is true? The answer is this: it is a commandment wrapped in forgiveness. When Christ says, I no longer condemn you, we must understand that because Christ is the Son of God and endowed with the powers of divinity, he has the power to forgive sins. Thus, for Christ to have said “I no longer condemn you” would logically mean that there was a point in time when Christ would have condemned her. Thus, the forgiveness part is: Neither do I condemn thee. This is the power of forgiveness from Jesus Christ. Not only that, but he gave her a commandment – which is works – ‘Go and sin no more’. So, yes, it was specific for her to no longer willfully choose to commit sexual transgression. He did not say “I will no longer condemn you no matter what you do from here on out” but that he no longer had reason to condemn her because of her past transgressions, but that she must make the choice to no longer live that lifestyle. And, this is important to understand the next several passages of John 8:12-59; especially John 8:31-59. In examining this text, one of the best commentaries is that of Jaimeson, Fausett and Brown:
How does one continue in the faith? How are we to truly show ourselves not only as Christians, but as disciples of Christ? Yet, Christ repeats this in the same manner but different wording: Verily, Verily I say unto you, If a man keep my saying, he shall never see death.
We all know that because of our mortal existence, we will experience death. So, Christ could not possibly speak of death here in the physical sense. This logically leaves the spiritual death that will befall human kind. The same commentary mentioned previously states it this way:
While the JFB Commentary on the Bible has a propensity for the Calvinistic Tradition, and most Calvinists understand this passage to be significant for the doctrine of Divine Election, the most significant of these passages are the fact that Christ does not merely talk about believing in him. Christ is referring to two fundamental truths of the gospel:
This is what separates man from Satan and his legions. Yes, they believe, but it is not one of a saving faith. It is one of detestable contempt as to who Jesus Christ is and what he does for humanity. And, while I do not hold to the Calvinistic tradition of Christian belief, John Chapter 8 is not talking of divine Election as the Calvinist would interpret it to mean. What it is talking about is the natural family – the human family – and the spiritual family. Yes, it is talking about those who are spiritually dead to Christ and the reason why some of the Jews could not hear to words of Christ. The significance is that it is talking about all of humanity. In a sense, we are spiritually dead because of the Fall. That I agree with. But, we are not so spiritually dead that we no longer have a volition regarding what is right and wrong. Without God, man has a sense of morality ingrained in his psyche and nature. It is this light that Christ refers to. Unfortunately, some use their volition to hide in the darkness while others use their volition to choose that which is good. Not that this saves or condemns one, but is very natural to the whole human mortal experience. It is this that Christ is referring to where he talks of how those who have come to believe in Christ are to continue in his words. What are his words? What are his sayings? The Bible is clear on what Christ’s words and sayings are, we have to return to the fundamental truths that he taught – obedience to the things of God and the Kingdom of God. Our faith is not one of confession, but it is a living faith. It is one of sacrifice. Thus, the principle doctrine of Sanctification is the process where we continually grow from faith to faith, from grace to grace. The more we subject ourselves to God’s commandments, the easier it becomes to fulfill and be perfected in this sense. Not that anyone of us could ever be perfect, but that we are perfect when we hold to the truths of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Faith, Repentance, Obedience.
Amber: If you say it is believing in all that Christ is, and living according to “the principle reality of God’s divine plan” – where are you founding your doctrine?
Timothy: I am founding my doctrine upon the Bible itself. As explained above, Christ had stated on several occasions where we are to be obedient to his words. Let us look at the New American Standard Bible version for these texts of scripture:
The heart of man determines how he proceeds to act in accordance to his life. The problem with modern Christianity is that they press so much on coming to the Cross of Christ for redemption that they do not go beyond the cross of Calvary and into the heart of the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Yet, while still at the cross, there is the condemnation toward those who hold to the commandments of God, not as a measure of salvation on its own merit, but as a measure of faith that they live out and walk in. This is where our volition comes in.
Once we pass the gates of forgiveness and redemption, we must walk the path of obedience. And, one of the most classical forms of Allegory of the true Christian life is the book Pilgrims Progress. If you have not read this classical Christian literature, it simply puts the allegory of the true meaning behind not only what it is to be a Christian, but to walk the Christian life.
What the confusion is (and the misrepresentation here) that Mormon’s don’t believe that we work our way into heaven and that by our works, we are saved. What Mormonism teaches is that once we have accepted Christ and have come into the gospel of Christ, we have to choose to live our lives according to what Christ has already instructed us to live by. Thus, obedience does not substitute Christ’s grace, it compliments the grace of God.
Now, regarding the first verse – John 15:20 – we understand that the immediate context is that of Christ being the vine and those who follow after him are the branches. Here, we have, not only the symbolism of the good branches bearing good fruit and branches that bear bad fruit. The question here, how does one abide in Christ? Is it a mere confession of faith and need for Christ? Or, is it by being obedient to the commandments of Christ? Not only did Christ teach that by abiding in him is by keeping the commandments, but that He Himself (Jesus Christ) the Son of God has kept His Father’s commandments? Now, if it is important for Christ to be obedient to the Father, how much more important is it for us to be obedient to Christ?
And, ask yourself this important question: If Salvation is solely based upon Sola Gratia (Grace Alone), then how and why Christ emphatically taught that we must abide in him by obeying his commandments? What is most interesting is that you asked the following: Who are we to pick and choose what is correct? I ask this question right back to you. Who are we to pick and choose whether or not being obedient is doctrinal or not? If Christ says “if you keep my commandments, you will abide in My love” then ought we not abide in Christ and the Love of Christ by keeping the commandments? And, what are these commandments that we are to keep? Who are we to say that keeping the commandments of Christ is not Biblical? But, let us not stop there. Let us look at the JFB commentary, paralleling it with other commentaries:
Now, these are just a sampling of where I get my doctrine. Not only this, but within the Christian tradition (specifically the Calvinistic doctrine) what is answered to both your questions is regarding the nature and doctrine of Sanctification. This is the second doctrine within the Biblical context that is to be understood as this: Justification, Sanctification and Glorification. While most Latter-day Saint believers are unfamiliar with the terminology of Justification, Sanctification, the doctrine of Glorification is understood differently than modern Christian thinking and understanding; the fact remains that the LDS believer actually upholds the doctrines and tenets of being Justified in Jesus Christ and living a life according to how Christ not only exemplified but commanded that we walk accordingly. This is called Sanctification, and the process of sanctification is the path to becoming perfect. Thus, we are not commanded to be perfect and without sin overnight, but by God’s divine grace and the forgiveness, we become perfect through a process of living out our faith, In the June 2001 Ensign, Elder D. Todd Christofferson states this simplistic definition:
Yet, the understanding of this is just as Christian in doctrine as it is in a Latter-day Saint term, it is more common in an Evangelical understanding:
Thus, much of all this concludes the fact that the misrepresentation is on the Evangelical Christian part in saying that Mormons don’t believe in Salvation by Grace because most of the Christian believers who contend with Latter-day Saints do so on the singularity of the Justification process, negating the harmonized doctrine of Sanctification. Meaning, a Christian Apologists claims that Mormonism teaches that Salvation is by works and therefore is false because the Bible does not teach that Salvation is by works when these apologists negate the understanding and discussion of the process of how one is and ought to be saved.
Amber: The God I know said not to add anything to His Holy Word or take anything away from it. Adding in text from the mormon bible is adding to His word, and I don’t see how that can be justified
Timothy: I take it that you are referring to the following passage in Revelation 22:18 – 19. The reason I conclude this is because of the nature of your statement that you believe God said not to add anything to His Holy Word or Take anything away from it. And, then, specifically mentioning “text” as being the “mormon bible” as the aspect of addition to God’s word. There are several problems with this line of argument.
1) God said not to add to or take away.
First off, yes we are not to add anything to God’s word or take anything away from God’s word. Not only was this commanded in Revelation, but this was also mentioned in Deuteronomy 4:2. And, if one is going to use this line of reason against the Latter-day Saints for the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl of Great Price, then one ought to look at the Masoretic Text (which is where most of the Modern English Bible Translations stem from) and some of the significant errors perpetuated in the transcription of the Old Testament texts as that of Deuteronomy 32:8-9 because of prevalent doctrinal beliefs. Also, what of the LXX – which is the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text of the Old Testament. The Latin Vulgate where the Hebrew, Greek were translated into Latin and considered the divinely inspired book.
2) But this all pales in comparison to the subject at hand. God said man can’t add to or take away from his words or commandments. But where does it say in scripture that God can’t add to or take away from his own word? Unless you can show it from the Old or New Testament where God says “I can not add to or take away from my word”, then the argument falls short.
3) The most significant and third reason why this argument fails is the fact that those who use this argument are either naive about the history of the Canon of the Bible or unfamiliar with proper interpretative practices of the Bible. There are those, however who poorly use this passage with a total disregard to the context of the passage. For this reason, the simplistic understanding is this: Revelation barely made it into the canon of scripture. In fact, the canon of the 66 books of the Bible did not take place until the council of Laodicea where it was determined as to what canon of scripture would be the official canon. Before this council, there were various different acceptable canon’s of scripture. Also, before the canon of scriptures, there was no actual concept of a Bible as we have it today, specifically the New Testament.
Regarding the canon of the Book of Revelation as being nearly rejected, we have this information:
Another good resource for a brief overview on this is the following article: The Emergence of the New Testament.
Yet, let us look at the immediate context of Revelation. The passage reads as follows:
The immediate context of these two verses is significant. John is not talking about the Bible (Old and New Testament) because there was no New Testament Canon when he wrote this book. While there is some debate on a scholarly level regarding the dating of the Book of Revelation, the common consensus is that it was written approximately 95 AD. Some hold to an earlier dating of Revelation to around the eve of Jerusalem’s destruction of 70 AD. Either side, the fact is, how would John talk about the entire 66 books of the Bible when he is specifically talking about the prophecies of his book? I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book. John is not talking about the Bible, nor prophecies, but the prophecy of this book. What is the prophecy of this book? The prophecy is the Parousia of Jesus Christ. Meaning it is about the coming of Christ the second time and the end of the age. It is the prophecy of end-times. Thus, it follows that John is saying that if any man were to add to the prophecies of this book, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in the book of Revelation. Therefore, it is talking about the prophecy. Adding or taking away from the prophecy of Jesus Christ’s second advent.
What all this means here is that the argument that you have posed is weak on a historical context reflecting a brief study of Biblical Canonicity of the New Testament and contextual understanding of what John specifically was referring to in the immediate context of the two passages. To prove that this refers to adding additional scripture is to abuse the proper interpretative principles of the Bible.
Amber: The most upsetting statement you made is the idea that the basis of living as a Christian is to try to perfect yourself. Again, perfecting yourself would have to fall in line with the proper doctrine, otherwise you could try to be perfect in anyone’s eyes. For example, climbing the corporate ladder, and succeeding financially in life, could be considered to be aquiring perfection by the world’s standards. I take my standards only from the Bible, and the doctrine you are presenting does not line up with the doctrine in my Bible. You have to either take every single word of it, or nothing is credible. Who are we to pick and choose what is correct? I guess I’m one of the bad guys in your eyes, because I believe that the mormon faith is incorrect, although lovely (as is Buddhism) from a worldly perspective (the commercials bring a tear to my eye every time) but that is the danger with false religions – they look fabulous and correct, but if they aren’t built on the solid foundation, how can any word of it be credible? A faith and religion built on any word other than God’s only Word, is not true Christianity.
Timothy: Let me clarify what I mean by the basis of living as a Christian is to try to perfect yourself. Essentially, what I am saying is this: The Christian life is one of a growing process where we move from faith to faith, grace to grace; this process being understood as sanctification. This is which I have already established in the first part of my response article to the first assertions you have made.
Secondly, I would have to agree with your analogy. But, let me expound upon it more fully to give you the overall perception of how salvation truly works with regards to the Mormon Belief system.
First, you have to secure the job. Whether it is because of your skill, because of your credentials or educational background, the ultimate decision is based upon the person interviewing you. They have to open the door for you to enter into the workforce and be gainfully employed at this company. So, once you are hired on, there is some training period you have to go through. Understanding the particular work place philosophies, rules and regulations, disciplinary actions regarding any violations of these policies and procedures. You make an agreement to follow and comply with all company policies and procedures. Once all this occurs, you are in entry level position. I am not sure about other states, but Washington state here gives you a 90 day probationary period for you to prove your work ethic and asset to the company. Once you pass the 90 day probationary period, you then are fully vested into the company and begin to receive the necessary and promised benefits outlined at the time of hiring.
Now, the question is begged. Do you get paid whether or not you work or pull your share of the workload or not? Up to a certain point yes. So, let us say that you slack off in your work ethic, production volume or ability to meet the necessary deadlines. What tends to happen is that you get reprimanded for not complying to the specific duties of the task you agreed to complete. Further non compliance of company policies and procedures will lead to ultimate termination. Once terminated, you become unemployed. So, at whose cost was it? The companies fault you were terminated? No, the accountability and blame rests upon you. Thus, because you can’t keep a job by just merely showing up every day at work. Likewise, you can’t progress in your employment if you remain in the same position and refuse to learn other tasks, take on additional responsibilities, prove yourself worthy of that promotion. Thus, in order to climb the corporate ladder, you actually have to reach up to the next rung and pull yourself up, taking a step up. You cant just stand at the foot of the ladder and say “I believe I will become a manager” and then stand there hoping day and night saying “I will be saved”.
Another, and yet more applicable analogy is this. A flood is coming and a Christian believer is watching the news. The flood waters are about knee deep and a person comes along and asks you to follow them to a higher ground. This fellow responds with “I believe that Christ will save me,” and waves the person off. He climbs up to the second level of his home and a row boat comes by. Again, he is asked to climb in. Much like the first time, this fellow states that Christ will definitely save him and he is confident that this will happen. A third time, the same man is sitting on his roof, the waters raging around him and a helicopter comes by with a rescue latter and a rescue person reaching out for him. As loud as he could, he exclaims “Christ will save me and I believe this to be true.” The helicopter ends up leaving him there.
Unfortunately, the fellow dies because he realized he can’t swim. Standing before Jesus, he asks, “Lord, I prayed and believed that you would save me from the flood waters, but here I am, having died. Why did you not save me?”
Christ replied: “I sent you the first man to call you out of your house. I sent a second person in boat to rescue you and you refused. The third time, I sent a Coast Guard Team to rescue you and you still refused them.”
We can pray all day long that Christ saves us from our sins. We can pray all day long asking Christ to forgive us. We can pray all day long, believing all we want that God will create us into a new being. But, if we don’t step out in faith, having hope and walk according to the commandments of Christ, then it does not matter. Hence, the reason why James said this: Faith without works is dead. Works is the evidence of the faith that is within us. It is the outer manifestation of our devotion and loyalty to Jesus Christ. And, truth be told, you as a Christian can’t deny the essential truth that mere obedience is a definite requirement to continue in the fellowship of Christ, a necessary fact that we are to do our best to put to death our former addictions and sins. Is a Drug Addict saved if they continue in their addiction? Is the Alcoholic free of his bondage if he is still a servant to that addiction? Is someone truly free of abuse if they keep returning to that abusive and hostile environment? Do you not recall the words of Christ and the Apostle Paul who emphatically state that to whom you serve, that is your master? If we serve Christ, we walk according to the will of Christ because he walked according to the very will of God, the Father.
This, then, brings us to your next statement. The statement where you have said that I do not get my doctrine from the Bible. Unfortunately, this is the heart of the issue where Christians are sometimes ignorant of true Latter-day Saint Doctrines and beliefs. Misinformed as to what is and is not Latter-day Saint doctrine. Misinformed as to specifically what it is and is not believed and accepted by the Latter-day Saint faithful. And, yes, you have to take everything in the Bible as whole or not take it at all. So the question I ask here is, do you take the scriptures seriously where Christ stated in the gospels and the Apostles has taught that we are to walk in obedience to Christ? Have you truly come to an understanding of what Christ meant when he says, Keep my commandments, Abide in my, keep my sayings, doth the will of God? Since we have established that even Satan believes, we also have established that those who call themselves Christians are set apart from the world and are to live a life that is obedient before God. This is not easy. We have to grow each day. We have to learn, we have to progress from one moment to another. We will make mistakes. We will commit sins, even after the point of salvation. But, this is the process of growing in our faith and devotion with Jesus Christ. And, this is where the heart of the plan of salvation comes into full effect. Why? Because there is a purpose to our creation. There is a reason we are here and a reason as to where we are going and what we are to accomplish. Essentially, it is this: God’s plan is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of mankind (see Moses 1:39)
And, finally, Mormonism is not just a religion with a bunch of doctrines, Mormonism is a way of life. A life that calls for one to commit their life over to a loving Father in Heaven. A life where we commit ourselves in keeping the commandments of God, not because it saves us, but because it is required of us by a loving Father in Heaven. And it is here that we find where some of the Christian believers do not understand the nature of Salvation perfectly. I say this because Christians are still at the cross of Calvary, praying for Christ to continually forgive them. Or, they stand up and are convinced they are saved and thus turn and wake the opposite way believing that that is all they had to do. No, Salvation is based upon us being justified before God and then live a life devoted to him in submission to his will and commandments.
Amber: Your closing statement of “Because you are not Christian! By whose standards? Man’s or God’s? Apparently, by Man’s definition and declaration.” – I am not taking man’s side or man’s definition or declaration, but the definition laid out in the Bible. I don’t believe your basis of what makes you a Christian lines up with the doctrine laid out in the Bible.
Timothy: I definitely understand where you are coming from because I once was there. Once stood and shouted, posted, debated and reasoned with Latter-day Saint believers as to how and why they are accepting the doctrines of a man and not the doctrines of God. But, since I have recommitted my life over to one of the deep passions I enjoy, the reality and truth is this: Most doctrines of modern Christianity are man made tenets. Augustine’s refined doctrine of Original Sin is based upon influential teachings he received while attempting to find a justified reason as to the nature between good and evil. The Council of Nicea to answer the Arian Heresy. The Protestant Reformation and the Calvinistic teachings of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Arthur W. Pink that teach only a select few are destined for Heaven and glory while those who are not of the elect are condemned because of Adam being the one who brought humanity under condemnation. Doctrines based upon man picking and choosing certain aspects of scriptures that seem to teach one thing but are nothing more than mistranslated and mis-interpretated.
The sad aspect of this is that I have proven how and why the Latter-day Saint doctrine of what constitutes a Christian truly lines up with the bible while the idealistic philosophy of Christianity is the one that is not in line with the bible. It is not just about the Cross, but it is about taking up our cross to follow Christ: And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. This was stated by Jesus Christ, Lord and Savior, the Son of God in Matthew 10:38, Luke 14:27. Not only that, but Christ said this also: If anyone wishes to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross and follow me. What does it mean to take up one’s cross and follow Christ? It means to daily deny ourselves and commit to obedience of the commandments of God. What are these commandments? Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind and strength; and, to love thy neighbor as thyself. Why are these the two greatest commandments? Because upon them hang all the laws and the Prophets testimony. Who said this? Jesus Christ himself.
1 Comment
Filed under Apologetic Article
Tags: Bible, Canon, Christianity, Comments, Evangelicals, faith, Gospel, History, Interpretation, Message, Mormonism, Philosophy, Protestants, Religion, righteousness, salvation, Sanctification, scripture, Testimony