~~ Breaking Down the
Barrier ~~
Between Latter-day Saints & Mainline Christians
Used by written permission.
Christian Research & Counsel
Tom Jones, Director; 3500 12th Avenue N., St.
Petersburg, FL 33713; 727-327-7280; tomstpete@ij.net
Today, even to the casual student of theology, there seems to be no reconciling the serious differences between the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and traditional Christianity. But this should not keep us from trying to reach out to each other with love and determination.
The Bible assures us that God is "not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance"(2 Peter 2-9 - JST) and He commands us to "contend for the faith that was once [for all] given to the saints" (Jude 1:3 - JST). God loves whichever of the two groups is wrong as well as the one which is right. And he makes the "right" group responsible for contending with those who are in error. Since both factions claim to be the "right" group, we both have a mandate from God himself to make the effort.
So let's not say, "what's the use, you've got your beliefs and I've got mine, so let's just agree to disagree". Let's contend for the faith, gently and lovingly with each other, until whichever needs repentance (Greek: a change of mind) can eagerly repent.
One way to approach this is to take a look at a time when LDS and traditional Christian understanding about the attributes of God were virtually identical. Then, try to ascertain what, when, why, and how things changed. Let's begin with the officially documented teachings of both groups.
We Agreed in 1835
In the first edition of the Doctrine and Covenants (hereafter the 1835
D&C), the Doctrine consisted of seventy pages of lessons titled THEOLOGY
(also referred to as the Lectures on Faith). In Lecture Third, p.36, it is
stated that, if one is going to have faith in God unto life and salvation, it is necessary
to
have "a correct idea of his character, perfections and attributes."
The lesson then proceeds to examine the attributes of God as given by revelation, mostly quoted and paraphrased from the Bible. One of those attributes was that God has always been God.
|
These are foundational truths which the 1835 D&C, the Bible, Latter-day Saints and orthodox Christians held in common in 1835.
So what's the problem?
Today, our beliefs on just this one basic point are so different that we have
traditional Christian churches, and the Mormon Church, each claiming that the other has a
false god, or gods:
"The false gods of Christendom bear the same names as the true Gods of the Bible.
Beyond this they have little resemblance. They are described in the creeds that the Lord
told Joseph Smith were 'an abomination in his sight' " (Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A
New Witness For The Articles of Faith, p.55)
What happened?
If, only 162 years ago, we believed the same essentials of faith in God, how is it that we now have different Gods?
Evidently it all started at the April, 1844 Conference of the Church, when Joseph Smith made a public a dramatic change in his teachings about the nature of God. He said:
|
As noted above, this sermon was delivered "at the April conference of the Church, 1844". (TPJS, p.342) As most LDS know, that makes this message the word of the Lord to them (see Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p.155).
Joseph no longer believed and taught as he did in the 1835 D&C, that God was God from all eternity. That which was absolutely necessary for our salvation in 1835, was no longer true nine years later. The new LDS God, starting in 1844, was once a mortal man, without the powers of Godhood, who became god. Prior to 1844, God had been the independent creator of all things. Now, he was dependent on another, who came before him, to bring him into being and sustain him.
Joseph Smith's teachings about the nature of God had been nearly in line with the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Christians churches. But, with this new God, he had departed from his own faith and scriptures (apostatized).
Ironically, many Latter-day Saints profess to believe both, that God has been God from all eternity, and that he was once a man who became a God. But Joseph Smith didn't believe both at the same time. First he admitted having believed the 1835 doctrine by saying, "We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity." Then he said he was refuting that idea. In other words, in 1844, he was proving it wrong. It was no longer true.
On seeing this for the first time, it's understandable that most LDS would want to question this information, so let's answer some of the more frequent questions:
QUESTION #1:
Haven't I heard that the Lectures on Faith are not scripture and, never really were?
ANSWER:
The preface to the 1835 D&C states that the 1835 edition "contains is short the leading items of the religion which we profess to believe". The next paragraph says that the first part of the book contains a series of lectures which "embrace the important doctrine of salvation" and for that reason they were made a part of the 1835 D&C.
On the title pages of the first two sections of the 1835 D&C. On the first page of the Lectures on Faith (top left), the title states that the Lectures are on the Doctrine of the church. The right hand page, the first page of the revelations, is labeled the Covenants and Commandments. The language in the Preface, the minutes of the General Assembly and these two title pages make it clear that the Lectures on Faith were canonized as the Doctrine of the Doctrine of Covenants. They were part of the Standard Works for 86 years until they were quietly removed in 1921.
QUESTION #2:
Were the Lectures voted on by the church?
ANSWER:
The minutes of the General Assembly which approved the 1835 D&C illustrate that the whole congregation was unanimous in its approval of the Lectures on Faith as the Doctrine of the Doctrine & Covenants. (1835 D&C, pp.255-257 - The underlined passages will give you a quick overview)
QUESTION #3:
In the current D&C, doesn't it say the Lectures were omitted because they "were not given or presented as revelations to the whole church? (D&C, 1989 edition, third to last paragraph of the Explanatory Introduction).
ANSWER:
Actually, they were not given as revelations to anyone, but as doctrine taken from the
revelations. However, they were voted on by the church and canonized as an important part
of the Doctrine & Covenants, as noted above.
As for the notion that only revelations can be included in the D&C, the very title
"Doctrine & Covenants" implies that there are lessons or principles taught
in addition to the covenants, or revelations received. The word doctrine means something
taught or a body of principles presented for belief.
Also the fourth to last paragraph in the Explanatory Introduction to the D&C (1989)
says that, in successive editions…
|
For examples of other sections which are not revelations, see section 34 which is
"A declaration of our belief regarding governments" and section 135 which is an
account of Joseph Smith's martyrdom, written by Elder John Taylor.
Unlike the other non-revelatory sections, however, the knowledge contained in the Lectures
on Faith was held to be necessary for salvation (Lecture 3:2-4, 1835 D&C,
p.36). Now, why would the doctrines taught
in those lectures be omitted from scripture if they were necessary for salvation? Why not,
rather, omit all the other non-revelations which are not necessary for salvation?
QUESTION #4:
What about Joseph Fielding Smith's contention that "the lectures are not now considered, and were not considered when they were placed in the Doctrine and Covenants, on a par with the revelations"?
ANSWER:
That may be true, but the doctrine we are concerned with here, one of the most basic tents of the Christian faith, that God was God from all eternity, was quoted directly from the revelations, which at the time were held to be true and essentially necessary if one is to have faith in God unto life and salvation. (Lecture 3:2-4, 7-9,19,1835 D&C, pp.36,37,39)
QUESTION #5:
But Joseph Smith didn't write or approve the Lectures on Faith, did he?
ANSWER:
Joseph Fielding Smith, church historian and leading scholar who became the 10th
LDS President and Prophet, said:
"…the only evidence we have as to where these Lectures of Faith came from is
from the Prophet Joseph Smith…the prophet, in two different places, makes this
statement: 'January, 1835--During the month of January, I was engaged in the school of the
elders, and in preparing the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine
and Covenants" (D.S., vol.2, p.301)
QUESTION #6:
Aren't you just splitting doctrinal hairs? What difference does it make anyway?
ANSWER:
Salvation depends on our knowledge of God!
This is not a debatable issue. Let's not forget that, as we saw earlier on page 36 of the 1835 D&C, it is necessary, in order to exercise faith in God unto life and salvation, that we have "a correct idea of [God's] character, perfection and attributes."
And there's much more to this than the one attribute we already discussed. Let's highlight a few more. At the bottom of page 36 we read that without the revelations "no man by searching could find out God." And on the adjacent page, 37, it says we are going go examine the character of God from those revelations. Three quarters of the way down the same page is the revelation we already looked at, Psalm 90:2-JST, which says that God is God, "from everlasting to everlasting". In other words, from eternity. God has always been what he is today!
God is not a man!
The next page, 38, quotes Numbers 23:19-JST, "God is not a man…"
QUESTION #7:
But doesn't it also say,"…that he should lie?"
ANSWER:
How does the phrase, "that he should lie", take anything away from the statement that "God is not a man?" The context of the statement is a discussion of six reasons why we are able to take God at his word. It's true that the main idea is that God will not lie to us. But it's equally obvious that the phrase, "God is not a man," is given as a reason why we can trust his word. This is further expanded on page 40:
|
Let's take a break from answering questions and let me ask:
How about you? Do you believe in a god who was once a man who made mistakes, or who lied to us about who he is and later changed his mind, or who did not have the power to protect his word from being corrupted by mere man?
God's word shall not pass away!
Or do you believe in the all-powerful God of the Bible who has always been God, who keeps his promises, who appeared in a body (as Jesus) and promised emphatically,
|
The same kinds of promises were made in LDS scripture:
|
Based on what we have seen so far, did the LDS Prophets honor and help to fulfill those promises? Or was scripture adjusted to permit a different gospel?
Before we answer more questions, let's examine a little more of Joseph's 1835 gospel.
God has always been God!
Back to the 1835 D&C, p.38, at the bottom of the page it declares that, what God is, he has always been, "from everlasting", and always will be, "to everlasting". (See also D&C 20:17, 28; Moroni 8:18; Mormon 9:9, all of which still reflect the 1835 theology)
Page 39 reminds us that knowing these attributes is "essentially necessary" for our salvation. Then, on the same page, we find another reminder that God is "God over all from everlasting to everlasting." At the bottom of the page, we find the caution that it is "equally necessary" that we know that God does not change.
At the top of page 45 God is referred to as "The God of heaven," not merely the God of this earth as Latter-day Saints have been led to believe.
Crucial doctrine!
Next, still on page 45, is another reminder that we are looking at the attributes of God which we must know in order to gain salvation. Would this have been emphasized so often if it were not crucial doctrine?
Toward the bottom of the page we find a quote from Isaiah 46:9 - JST saying that there is none other like God. As he is "God of heaven," doesn't it stand to reason that there is none other like him in heaven as well as this earth? He is unique throughout the immensity of space!
Nehemiah puts it this way:
|
Page 46 reiterates, simply, that there is no other God and Savior.
QUESTION #8:
Didn't Joseph Smith say, "I have always and in all congregations, when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for 15 years"? (TPJS, p.370, June 16, 1844)
ANSWER:
The above quote from Joseph Smith is accurate, but is his claim true? If it's true, that would mean that, counting back 15 years from 1844, Joseph began teaching the plurality of Gods in 1829. But 10 years later, in 1839, God allegedly gave the following revelation about:
|
If Joseph and the Elders had known, by the word of God since 1829, that there was more than one God, why would God have given them this revelation?
No plurality of Gods in early LDS teachings
As if the contradictory revelation of 1839 were not enough, there is also a complete absence of teaching on the plurality of Gods prior to that date. A recent computer search of LDS Scripture, TPJS, History of the Church Journal of Discourses, etc. has turned up nothing that would verify Joseph's claim.
On the other hand, the Bible (including JST) and the Book of Mormon provide an abundance of evidence that, in the beginning, Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were just one God, the only God in all of creation and throughout all time, past, present and future.
QUESTION #9:
Doesn't that mean they are one in purpose?
ANSWER:
No one would disagree that they are one in purpose, just as we can be one with them in purpose (Jn 17:22 - JST), but nowhere in the Standard Works does it say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in purpose only. LDS scripture does say, simply and clearly, that they are one God, that there is only one God and that no one else is going to be God, ever (Alma 11:44; D&C 20:28; Isaiah 43:10 - JST… There are just a sample of many verses which can be quoted)
QUESTION #10:
What about Joseph Smith's first vision, where he saw God the Father and the Son as two separate and physical entities?
ANSWER:
Today's official version of the vision was first published in 1838, eighteen years after the alleged event. But let's look at the original rendition of the first vision in the prophet's own handwriting, recorded six years earlier.
On the title page of the book, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, and page 6 of this transcript from Joseph's journal where you can verify the text and context. Also see the photocopy of the original page from Joseph's journal, found in the same book.
Notice that the text says, "and I saw the Lord and he spoke unto me… I was crucified…". This is clearly speaking of Jesus Christ and there is no mention of the Father. In 1832, Joseph Smith evidently had no notion of more than one God. Which do you believe, the original version of the first vision in his own handwriting, or the version written 6 years latter, during the germination of his new gospel?
Now, back to God's attributes on page 51, here's another reminder that these attributes of God never change. He has always been God. We can trust him because he is not a man. He is unique (there never has been and never will be another like Him). Notice too, that the reason these attributes can never change is "so that all men have had, and will have an equal privilege."
Finally, the underlined question at the bottom of page 51 reminds us again that we would not "lay hold of eternal life" without knowing the preceding attributes of God, a few of which we have examined.
Another important change in God's nature
On page 53 of the 1835 D&C. Here, in the Fifth Lecture on Faith, it plainly states that the Father is "a personage of spirit." Again, the teaching is the same as what the Bible and Christianity have always taught, not a personage of flesh and bone as the Mormon Church teaches today. Notice that, in the same sentence, the nature of the Father is contrasted to the nature of the son who is "a personage of tabernacle" (or body).
QUESTION #11:
We still believe that God the Father has spirit. Don't you?
ANSWER:
No, and that's not what the 1835 D&C says. The verb is being, not having. It's one thing to have an apple. It would be quite different to be an apple. You know, if words did not have specific meanings, we'd have a hard time communicating with each other. And why would God have given us his written word, and told us to depend on it "to make thee wise unto salvation" (2 Timothy 3:15) if the words were not to be understood?
By the way, in all the Standard Works (scriptures) and other official publications of the Mormon Church, through 1835, there is no mention of God the Father being anything but an invisible personage of spirit, (1835 D&C, p.53, 62; Colossians 1:15 - JST; 1 Timothy 1:17 - JST; John 4:24; Luke 24:37,39 - JST; Alma 18:26-28, 22: 7-11)
QUESTION #12:
How can we be sure what Joseph Smith meant by "the Father being a personage of spirit?" He's not here to explain it to us.
ANSWER:
Joseph's not here to explain it, but D&C 130:22 tells us that…
|
Could it be said any clearer? And there's another important testimony. Jesus Christ himself said…
|
QUESTION #13:
Don't you realize that those books are written by imperfect men who sometimes made mistakes? That's why we have a living prophet, to correct any confusion.
ANSWER:
That's not what LDS Prophets used to teach about scripture. For example Joseph Smith said…
|
Joseph Fielding Smith agreed, saying…
|
As for the living prophet, if Joseph Smith was in error about essential doctrines while he was the living prophet, and other prophets continued in those errors for 86 years, how does it help to have a living prophet today who is also a man capable of making the same kinds of error?
QUESTION #14:
If the prophet leads me astray, and I am sincere, don't you believe Heavenly Father will understand that I was being faithful to the best of my knowledge?
ANSWER:
LDS Prophet Heber J. Grant did say…
|
In Isaiah 9:14-16 - JST, however, God said….
|
Have you really been faithful to the best of your knowledge, or has it been to the best of your feelings?
God once said, of the Israelites…
|
Please, don't leave this to chance. God will not be mocked. He has warned us over and over to use the intellect he gave us to discern truth from error, not to depend on feelings but to compare everything to what He has revealed in the past to make sure it stands the test. I know the Church urges you to depend on feelings, but is that God's way? Consider if you will, the following passages of scripture:
|
Did you get that last verse? The Apostle Paul, who received the Gospel directly from the Lord himself, didn't merely trust feelings, or even visual revelation, without making sure that it was in agreement with what had been revealed to those apostles who went before him.
Paul also said that even he had no authority to change the gospel which he had first preached:
|
Joseph Smith evidently agreed when he said:
|
Doctrine and Covenants contains a commandment…
|
Joseph Fielding Smith reiterated that commandment:
|
So, are we to teat truth by feelings or by comparing new revelation to the existing word of God? How can we test a new prophet's revelations against scripture if we allow him to rewrite scriptures to fit his message?
Who really changed doctrine and tampered with scripture?
The Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been tampered with, that it used to teach doctrines which are missing or different today, and that Christianity has changed it's basic beliefs (apostatized)? But knowing that we have manuscripts which date back to the canonization of the Old and New Testaments, shouldn't there be evidence, as in the case of the 1835 D&C, to confirm such serious charges? Or did you accept the church's claims because it seemed to make sense or it felt right?
Are you aware that in 1842, when the articles of faith were first published, the 8th article said that "We believe in the Word of God recorded in the Bible? The words, "as far as it's translated correctly," are not in the text. Evidently the Church trusted in the Bible then, having completed the Joseph Smith Translation nine years earlier. (History of the Church, vol.1, p. 368)
If you have avoided Christian Churches and not fully trusted the Bible because you felt they were probably apostate, how do you feel about supporting a church which you now know changed important doctrines and tampered with scripture?
Can feeling that Joseph Smith was a true prophet of God change the reality of the evidence you have just seen for yourself?
Are you aware that radical changes were made to the original revelations from the Book of Commandments when they were republished in the Doctrine & Covenants (1835-1989)?
Would you like to examine some of the more important changes for yourself?
Would you be interested in learning why you should trust God's Word, the Bible?
Would you like to be a part of the "Body of Christ" and know for certain that you will spend all of eternity with Him? You can start, simply by going back to the original theology of the first century church and reject all new gospels (Gal 1:8-9 - JST).
If you would like a brief summary of what the Bible says about how to obtain eternal life, call or write:
|
Corrections and constructive criticism welcome.