12 For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are ablinded by the subtle bcraftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to cdeceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they dknow not where to find it—
I will post reviews and rebuttals that I'm working on, have been done, or ones that I find helpful or interesting. These wil most likely be limited to things that are already published against the LDS faith, whether in book, newspaper, online or other format. The difference between this page and the apologetics and more page will be the fact this will be directly reviewing/refuting what is already written whereas the other will be simply answering criticisms (along with a few other things).
Rebuttle to Jesus/Joseph DVD released on 3-25-07 throughout the country:
CARM rebuttles
This is a short list of sites refuting the CARM website:
http://www.aros. net/~wenglund/ dmormon.htm
http://web.archive. org/web/20011117 162619/www. geocities. com/ldsbeliefs/ anti72.html
http://web.archive. org/web/20020610 054711/www. geocities. com/ldsbeliefs/ anti73a.html
Review of "Fundamental differences between the Reorganized Church and the Church in Utah"
Below is a review done by my friend, Felix Rockwell, of a book written by an RLDS (Comunity of Christ) member pointing out differences between the two restoration branches and declaring the LDS church or "The Church in Utah" to be false, this is my friend's rebuttle, this is not my work, but his:
Review of the book
Fundamental Differences Between the Reorganized Church
and the Church in Utah
Originally when I asked for literature from a friend
of mine on the beliefs of the Church of Christ
Restored my intention was simply to gain a better
understanding of how the beliefs of the Church of
Christ Restored differed from those of my own. My
friend lent me the book Fundamental Differences
written by Russell Ralston. During and after having
read the book I felt that something ought to be done
to correct the many inaccuracies found within its
pages. The purpose of this review is to respond to
most of the objections raised by Mr. Ralston against
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (LDS)
and its doctrines. The intent of this review is not to
convert anyone, since only God through the Holy Spirit
can do that. Rather my hope is to provide rational
arguments in defense of LDS doctrines. Said Austin
Farrer:
Though rational argument does not create conviction,
the lack of it destroys belief. What seems to be
proved may not be embraced, but what no one shows the
ability to defend is quickly abandoned. Rational
argument does not create belief, but it maintains a
climate in which belief may flourish.
Please note that I will not be dealing with every
objection in Ralston’s book -- just those which I care
to answer.
The views presented in this review are my own and are
not necessarily the official position of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Any mistakes in
communicating official LDS Church doctrine are my own.
For a better understanding of how to understand
whether something is official doctrine of the LDS
Church, please read the article:
“Official Doctrine”
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/brochures/doctrine.pdf
I should point out that the nickname “Church in Utah”
has become very outdated now that we’ve reached the
year 2006. The LDS Church headquarters may currently
be located in Utah, but the majority of Latter-Day
Saints today do not reside in Utah, or even in North
America. President Gordon. B. Hinckley, current
President of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day
Saints, stated the following in a recent General
Conference:
“Our membership now reaches almost 12 million, with
more members outside North America than reside within.
Once we were recognized as a Utah church. Now we have
become a great international body.”
(“The Church Grows Stronger,” Ensign, May 2004, p.4)
For a statistical breakdown of the above statement,
please see the attached “Church Growing in More than
160 Countries.” (Ensign, “News of The Church,” January
2005. References from the Ensign are also available at
www.lds.org under the heading “Gospel Library.”)
Key to Abbreviations in References
LDS (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints)
CCR (The Church of Christ Restored)
COC (Community of Christ)
RLDS (Shared beliefs of the COCR and COC)
BOM (Book of Mormon)
D&C (LDS Doctrine and Covenants)
ACMQ (Answers to Challenging Mormon Questions by
Michael Hickenbotham, lay member)
E&R (Evidences and Reconciliations by Elder John
Widtsoe, LDS apostle)
EJST (Encyclopedia of Joseph Smith’s Teachings, edited
by Larry E. Dahl and Donald Q. Cannon)
AOF (Articles of Faith by James E. Talmadge, LDS
apostle)
TG (The Gainsayers by Darrick T. Evenson, lay church
member)
1000 Evidences (1000 Evidences for the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints by Allen H. Richardson,
David E. Richardson, and Anthony E. Bentley. All lay
church members.)
DCIM (Doctrine and Covenants Institute Student’s
Manual, official LDS publication)
DOD (Day of Defense by A. Melvin McDonald, lay church
member)
MD (Mormon Doctrine by Elder Bruce R. McConkie, LDS
apostle)
Chapter 1: Succession In The Presidency
Explanatory References
*Succession in the Presidency of the Church by
President Joseph Fielding Smith, former President of
the LDS Church
*E&R pp. 255, 260-265
*The Mantle of the Prophet Joseph Passes to Brother
Brigham:
A Collective Spiritual Witness
*DCIM: Enrichment B; pp. 101,103, 105
Regarding the objection that the LDS are severed from
the priesthood, I provide the statements made by
Joseph F. Smith, Jr. to the contrary. Against the COC
one can argue that since they have declared the Book
of Mormon to be a piece of inspired fiction and that
women now have the right to hold the priesthood just
as men do, that it severed itself from the priesthood
when it chose to support these false doctrines. Also
noteworthy is the fact that the number of their
membership has significantly decreased since the
1960’s. (“The Community of Christ--the controlling
faction of what was once known as the Reorganized
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints--has not
prospered. Instead those in charge of the Community of
Christ have managed, since the late 1960’s, to turn
the nearly 250,000 on their membership rolls into
something like 70,000 members. This dramatic decline
has been the result of adopting radically revisionist
guesswork about Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon.”
[The FARMS Review, Vol. 15, # 2, 2003, “Prying Into
Palmer” by Louis Midgley, p.407]) Against the CCR one
can argue they have been severed from the priesthood
since they currently do not have a Prophet, First
Presidency, or Quorum of Twelve Apostles to guide
them, and have not had any of these since the time
that they separated themselves from those who are now
the COC. The apostle Paul taught that prophets and
apostles are an essential part of the true church of
Jesus Christ “till we all come in the unity of faith”
and so that we are not “carried about by every wind of
doctrine” (Ephesians 4:11-14). Also, if God’s law of
succession “clearly” says that the successor to a
prophet must appointed by the previous prophet (FD
p.15) then how can the CCR hope to receive a new
prophet when they have no prophet to choose a
successor? In order to have a successor would not the
CCR have to pursue a course of action other than that
outlined as God’s “very plain and specific law....
which provides for orderly and unquestioned authority
when followed”? (FD p.15)
Headquarters for the Lord’s Church
The Lord did reveal in the Doctrine and Covenants that
the “center place” of Zion in the last days would be
in Independence, Missouri (D&C 57:1-3). The LDS and
RLDS disagree as to the definitions of Zion and where
the true church’s headquarters should be presently
located. At first the early Saints moved to Missouri
intending to make it their permanent home. However,
soon after the Church began to be organized in
Missouri the Saints were severely persecuted by
gentile mobs and driven from their homes. Later the
Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that he
should organize Zion’s Camp, a group of able-bodied
men to set out with the purpose of reclaiming the land
that had been stolen from the Saints. Zion’s Camp was
not successful in reclaiming that land due to the
camp’s collective wickedness. However, the Lord
revealed that this event would come at a later time,
after the members were sufficiently prepared to return
there. The LDS Church does plan to relocate to
Missouri at some point in time and make Independence
their new headquarters, but for now its headquarters
are located in Utah, in fulfillment of prophecies by
Isaiah and Joseph Smith II (see chapter 8 commentary).
For more a more detailed explanation of LDS teachings
regarding Zion and the delay in moving back to
Missouri, please see the following references:
DCIM: Enrichment B; pp. 101,103, 105
Chapter 2 & 3: The Mormon Doctrine of Deity
Explanatory References
*EJST pp. 294-298
*AOF pp. 420-426
*http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/1999PylD.html
*E&R pp. 51-71
*http://farms.byu.edu/questionday.php?id=19
*ACMQ: pp. 71-114
*TG pp. 61-68,233,174-193
*Biblical Mormonism pp. 98-100
*1000 Evidences pp. 65-94,163,193-201,205-211
*Refuting The Critics pp. 134-139 (143-162
Bibliography)
*The King Follet Discourse: Joseph Smith’s Greatest
Sermon in Historical Perspective by Donald Q. Cannon
*The Doctrinal Impact of the King Follett Discourse
by Van Hale
*http://www.fairlds.org/pubs/conf/2004TveJ.html
Mr. Ralston condemns the LDS Church for teaching that
God the Father was once a man, who died, was
resurrected, and is a separate personage from Jesus
Christ, when in fact the Prophet Joseph Smith taught
all of these things. His 1838 account of the First
Vision clearly demonstrated that God the Father and
God the Son are two distinct personages. If they are
two distinct personages and each possesses godhood,
that means that there exists at least two Gods --
hence a plurality of Gods. Joseph Smith later repeated
and clarified these truths in the King Follet
Discourse and other times throughout his life.
Mr. Ralston argues that LDS doctrine contradicts
scripture by stating that we believe that “God was
once a man who is changeable and imperfect” (FD p.21).
Let’s take a look at each of these claims.
God Was Once A Man
From what I’ve read and heard of RLDS doctrine, there
seems to be no clear consensus among CCR members of
whether God the Father (aka Heavenly Father among the
LDS) and Jesus Christ are one and the same being, or
whether they are separate. Mr. Ralston says that the
RLDS believe in only one God, but in the context in
which he does so is to disprove a plurality of Gods
and in so doing he denies the deity of Jesus Christ.
We ought to ask ourselves: Is Jesus God? I’ll make
references to the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the
Doctrine and Covenants, and the Explanatory References
to answer this question.
The Bible
John 1-3,14; 1 Timothy 2:5
In Timothy 2:5 we learn that Jesus Christ is a God and
is a mediator between God the Father and mankind. If
both Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ are really the
same being, then how could Jesus mediate between
Himself and mankind? Mediation implies at least three
separate parties involved.
The Bible has many other references to references to
pointing to deity of Jesus Christ, most notably the
fact that he is identified repeatedly as Jehovah, the
God of the Old Testament. (See references under “Do
Bible scriptures support the belief that Jesus Christ
was Jehovah of the Old Testament?” in ACMQ pp. 99-103
for a list of these references.)
The Book of Mormon
1 Nephi 19:10, 2 Nephi 26:12, Mosiah 7:27,13:34-35, 3
Nephi 11:14, Mormon 3:21
The Doctrine and Covenants
D&C 19:16-19, 110:1-4.
Having shown that Jesus is God, we can then ask
ourselves, Did Jesus live as a man? Of course. Hence
any church who believes that Jesus is God and
criticizes the LDS Church for believing that God once
lived as a man, is unwittingly condemning themselves
with the same so-called blasphemy. While it’s true
that Latter-Days Saints believe that the Father and
the Son are two distinct personages, and that both
have a body of flesh of bones as tangible as a man’s
(D&C 130:22; Joseph Smith History 1:17-18, Pearl of
Great Price), we also believe the Father of Jesus
Christ also went through a mortal experience similar
to that of Jesus Christ (see EJST p.349).
God Is Changeable
See the explanation entitled
“Is the God of Mormonism a changeable God?” in ACMQ
pp. 71-74.
God Is Imperfect
This objection begs two questions: 1) Was Jesus
perfect while living as a mortal man? and, 2) What
does it mean to be perfect?
During Jesus’s mortal life we read how he:
1. “grew and waxed strong” Luke 2:40
2. “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with
God and man” Luke 2:52
3. “learned ... obedience by the things which he
suffered” Hebrews 5:8
4. “was in all points tempted as we are” Hebrews 4:15
5. experienced birth, pain, joy, sorrow, anger, and
death (Matthew 21:12-13, Mark 8:2, John 11:35, Mosiah
3:7, D&C 93:13,17)
Not until after he faithfully completed his mortal
mission and he was resurrected did he claim to be
perfect (3 Nephi 12:48). One definition of the word
perfect means “complete” or “finished.” In other words
when Jesus made this claim to be perfect he was no
longer merely a sinless being who possessed the power
of God--he was “complete” or “finished” as a result of
his having experienced mortality and having
successfully learned obedience through all of the
things which he suffered (Hebrew 5:8).
Neither of the statements Mr. Ralston cites from
Brigham Young or John Taylor actually say that God
increases in knowledge. God can ascend to great
heights of “perfection” only in the sense that the
worlds and children he has created are perfected
(“finished”). However, God’s work never ends (2 Nephi
29:9), so while on one hand some of God creations
reach their “finished” or perfected state, God’s work
as a whole will never be finished. What is God’s work?
The Lord said to Moses “For behold, this is my work
and my glory — to bring to pass the immortality and
eternal life of man” (Moses 1:39, Pearl of Great
Price).
Brigham Young did say this about God’s knowledge:
He is a God of system, order, law, science, and art; a
God of knowledge and of power. (Discourses of Brigham
Young, p.18)
God is the source, the fountain of all
intelligence.... (Ibid. p.18)
It is written that God knows all things and has all
power. He has the rule and command of this earth, and
is the Father of all the human beings that have lived,
do live and will live upon it. If any of his children
become heirs to all things, they in their turn can
say, by and by, that they know all things, and they
will be called Supreme, Almighty, King of kings, Lord
of lords. All this and more that cannot enter into our
hearts to conceive is promised to the faithful, and
are but so many stages in that ceaseless progression
of eternal lives. This will not detract anything from
the glory and might of our Heavenly Father. For he
will still remain our Father, and we shall still be
subject to him, and as we progress in glory and power,
the more it enhances the glory and power of our
Heavenly Father. (Ibid. p. 20)
John Taylor’s statement is clarified by the above by
Elder Bruce R. McConkie of the Quorum of the Twelve
Apostles:
It should be realized that God is not progressing in
knowledge, truth, wisdom, or any of the attributes of
godliness. He has already gained these things in their
fulness. But he is progressing in the sense that his
creations increase, his dominions expand, his spirit
offspring multiply, and more kingdoms are added to his
domains. (Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 5-10,
Mormon Doctrine p.239).
I must disagree with the statement cited to Wilford
Woodruff that God progresses in knowledge. As
explained previously Brigham Young taught otherwise.
It also must be remembered that no LDS leader,
regardless of his position, claims to be infallible
(see “Official Doctrine” link cited in the
Introduction). However, in regards to increasing in
power, one should remember that the word power has
more than one definition. God can increase in power1
(the capacity or ability to direct or influence the
behavior of others or the course of events. For
example, men can purposely give Satan power over their
lives by the choices they make and thereby decrease
the God’s power in their lives.) but God cannot
increase in power2 (the ability to do something or act
in a particular way, esp. as a faculty or quality).
God is not a being who has unlimited power to do
anything, for God does not have the ability to
anything evil. God has maximal power only to do good.
If God did anything evil then he would cease to be God
(Alma 42:25).
God’s dominion could be increasing in the sense that
each time God creates and populates a new world, he
now has more subjects to rule over.
In response to Orson F. Whitney’s remark on FD p.24, I
quote John Taylor, former President of the Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. President Taylor
explained in what sense God’s latest word is more
important than previous revelations:
Adam’s revelation did not instruct Noah to build his
ark; nor did Noah’s revelation tell Lot to forsake
Sodom; nor did either of these speak of the departure
of the children of Israel from Egypt. These all had
revelations for themselves, and so had Isaiah,
Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, John, and
Joseph. And so must we, or we shall make a shipwreck
(John Taylor, The Gospel Kingdom, sel. G. Homer Durham
[Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1943], p. 34)
The implication made by Ralston is that in LDS
theology God changes, so therefore the LDS have no
need for the Bible or Book of Mormon -- God can
discover new truths, constantly change his mind, etc.
Here Mr. Ralston has made a hasty generalization. The
Explanatory References already went into the subject
of God whether God changes. What the LDS really
believe as taught by the Bible, Book of Mormon, and by
LDS prophets and apostles is that God is all-knowing,
and that while practices and procedures may change,
and the counsel God gives comes to according to their
needs and circumstances of the people (see John Taylor
quote above). The principles and eternal truths of the
gospel never change. In all fairness, if one decides
to argue that Jesus is God and that God has never
increased in knowledge, one has to concede that the
Bible contradicts the notion that Jesus knew
everything while living as mortal man (Luke 2:40, Luke
2:52, Hebrews, 5:8, Mark 13:32.) Thus God, as Jesus,
increased in knowledge.
I have never heard of any LDS member teach that God
increases in knowledge, besides the statement to that
effect by Wilford Woodruff. I do not know how to
explain his comment regarding knowledge, but if he did
make this statement then there are three reasons why
it wouldn’t really bother me. The first reason is that
no LDS leader claims to be infallible. The second
reason is that other leaders before and after
President Woodruff have clarified taught that God does
not increase in knowledge. The third reason is that
this statement was never canonized.
If the RLDS do not believe that we should have any
revelations beyond what is written in the Bible and
Book of Mormon, then how is that different from
denying the need and the possibility for present
revelation given through prophets, apostles, and other
church leaders within their own churches?
In view of the evidence give from ancient and modern
scriptures, statements made by the Prophet Joseph
Smith other LDS Church leaders, and historical
evidence regarding the beliefs of the primitive church
of Christ, the only reasonable conclusion I see is a
belief in monarchical monotheism. (See
www.blakeostler.com for a more detailed explanation of
the term “monarchical monotheism”.) God the Father and
God the Son are both separate in substance but both
possess godhood--this fact alone establishes the truth
that there exists a plurality of Gods. Joseph Smith
said he saw two personages in his First Vision in
1820, and because I accept his testimony I find it
impossible to believe God the Father and the Son are
actually one personage or one God in substance.
In response to Ralston’s interpretation of Alma
11:26-31, I quote the follow from Joseph Fielding
McConkie and Robert Millett:
This is a discussion-a question-and-answer
session-that could be difficult to follow. Zeezrom, in
his eagerness to trap Amulek in his own words, asks
whether there is more than one God. Amulek answers
that there is not. Amulek is, of course, speaking
entirely of the Savior, of the Lord Jehovah; he is not
making reference to our Father in Heaven or to the
Godhead. That same Jehovah had spoken anciently to
Isaiah: "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there
is no saviour" (Isaiah 43:11). Zeezrom then asks
whether It is the Son of God who will come as the
Messiah, to which Amulek answers simply, "Yea." From
the crafty lawyer's perspective at this point it would
appear that Amulek is contradicting himself. But in
fact the Nephite missionary is delivering a profound
truth: Jesus Christ is both God and Son of God. is
there only one God? Yes, there is only one God who
shall come to take away the sins of the world and
ransom fallen men and women from the temporal and
spiritual death brought into the world by the fall of
Adam. That God is also the Son of God, the Son of Man,
meaning the Son of the Man of Holiness (see Moses
6:57). (Doctrinal Commentary on the Book of Mormon,
vol. 3 Joseph Fielding McConkie, Robert L. Millet)
On FD p. 42 Mr. Ralston states that “If Jesus Christ,
the Son of God who was with God from the beginning did
not claim to be God, how foolish it is for men to
aspire to Godhood!”
But the fact of the matter is that Jesus did claim to
be God. Even so-called mainstream Christians would
agree that Jesus claimed to be God:
*http://www.equip.org/free/CP1202.htm
*http://www.equip.org/free/CP1203.htm
*http://www.equip.org/free/CP1205.htm.
The LDS believe that Jesus is not God the Father (i.e.
Heavenly Father) but God the Son, who is a member of
the Godhead and also qualifies for the title of “God.”
Although at times throughout scripture Jesus is
referred to as “Father,” the title is case sensitive,
as been explained in AOF by the First Presidency and
in Refuting the Critics by Michael Griffith.
In regards to who God’s children are, the Scriptures
teach that there are two different ways a person can
be referred to as a son or daughter of God -- literal
spiritual child of God in the sense that God created
our spirits, and figurative spiritual child of God in
the sense that Christ/God the Son is Father to those
who accept the gospel and are born again. See Biblical
Mormonism pp. 98-100 for further explanations of this
difference.
Jesus Married?
While the Church has no official position on the
matter and his martial status is not preached among
us, here’s some food for thought:
*TG pp. 154-155,197-201
*http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai224.html
I believe that it’s possible to accept Isaiah 53:10 as
interpreted by Orson Hyde and the prophet Abinadi. Not
all scripture has only one correct interpretation.
Much of Isaiah’s has more than one level of meaning.
For example, while Judah did seek help from the nation
of Egypt as an actual historical event (Isaiah
30:4-7), a spiritual lesson to be learned from this is
that “whenever we seek help from the world, apart from
God, it will be in vain” (Understanding Isaiah by
Parry, Parry, and Peterson, p.278). Another example is
Isaiah 6:4 where it talks of smoke in the temple.
Actual literal smoke in the temple is one possible
interpretation, but another interpretation is also
likely: the smoke representing the prayers of the
Saints and/or even the glory of God (see Psalms 141:2,
Revelation 5:8, Exodus 19:18, Revelation 15:8;
Understanding Isaiah by Parry, Parry, and Peterson
p.65).
On FD p. 49 Ralston points out that a phrase
containing “gods” was different in one version of the
text for D&C 121. The difference he makes mention to
does not necessarily disprove the existence of a
plurality of gods. Interestingly enough, he makes no
mention of D&C 121:28 which states that:
A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld,
whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be
manifest.
This statement clearly eludes to a plurality of gods.
It begs the question of why would Joseph Smith record
something like in his letter unless the Lord revealed
it to him. The answer is clear based upon the
evidence I’ve already presented.
Truthfulness of the Book of Abraham
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai125.html
King Follett Discourse
See attached articles on dealing with the King Follett
Discourse which support the discourse’s accuracy and
confirms that Joseph Smith also taught the concepts of
the discourse on prior occasions.
In response to p. 54 of FD we could also make the
comparison that because Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John
wrote the Gospels after Christ had died, we cannot
trust what they wrote to be accurate. Using Ralston’s
logic we should likewise discard the four Gospels
because they were written after Jesus had died. While
someone did concede to the possibility of errors in
the King Follett discourse, I have yet to discover
where those errors are. This admission by a church
leader does not preclude the possibility of a
plurality of gods. Another important fact to keep in
mind is that the Book of Mormon, which Joseph Smith
called the “most correct of any book earth” may have
some errors in the text. The prophet Moroni told us
their might be errors in the Book of Mormon text (see
Book of Mormon Title Page; Mormon 8:12, 9:31). Again
using Ralston’s logic we could say that because the
Book of Mormon has errors we should discard the whole
book as invalid. What Moroni said about the text of
the Book of Mormon I would apply to the present text
of the King Follett Discourse:
“And now, if there are faults they are the mistakes of
men; wherefore, condemn not the things of God, that ye
may be found spotless at the judgment-seat of Christ”
(Book of Mormon Title Page).
Joseph Smith also admitted that the Bible had errors:
I believe the Bible as it read when came from the pen
of the original writers. Ignorant translators,
careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt
priests have committed many errors (EJST p.74).
If were are to dismiss the complete text of the King
Follett discourse because some Mormon leader said that
it likely had “many errors,” why not apply the same
logic to the worth of the Bible? Following that line
of logic one would have to discard the Bible as a
whole just because it has errors.
The credibility of James Whitehead was significantly
compromised in my mind after I read his testimony
regarding Joseph Smith III being Joseph Smith, Jr.’s
successor. All of those whom Whitehead mentioned as
being present during the ordination of Joseph Smith
III by his father testified throughout their lives
that no such ordination took place. (See the
“Succession in the Presidency of the Church” article
by Elder Joseph F. Smith, Jr.)
Knowing the above facts, I cannot accept any of the
Ralston’s arguments against the King Follett
Discourse.
I’m still convinced that the Mormon doctrine of God is
correct.
Chapter 4: Adam-God Theory and Blood Atonement
Explanatory References
*http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai002.html
*http://www.wasatchnet.net/users/ewatson/7AdamGod.htm
*E&R
pp. 68-71
*ACMQ pp. 57-61
*TG pp. 174-175
The Women of Mormondom book was not written by a
church leader. It has no authoritative value and the
statements Ralston quotes from it are not accurate and
have never been representative of LDS doctrine.
Notice that on FD p. 66 B.H. Roberts defends the
doctrine taught by Brigham Young that Adam is the God
of this world. As explained by Elder Widtsoe, Adam is
the God of this world in a certain context, but Adam
is not being referred to as the same being as God the
Father (Heavenly Father).
There are two Adam God theories being referred to: 1)
Adam is a god of this world and 2) The first man Adam
is the literal father of Jesus Christ and the same
being as our Heavenly Father. The second of these is
false and has never been a taught by any LDS leader.
Without the whole text of Elder Roberts’s remarks I
can only say that the statement “As a matter of fact
the ‘Mormon’ Church does not teach this doctrine” is a
true statement for whichever of the Adam God theories
one believes he is talking about. The true Adam God
theory was never accepted as scripture and is not
taught in public discourse as one of our official
beliefs. If one understands the correct interpretation
of of Brigham Young’s remarks as explained by Elder
Widtsoe then there is nothing heretical about what
President Young said about Adam being a god. I believe
the the true Adam-God theory is not taught today
simply because it is difficult for most people to
grasp. The apostle Paul also taught many things which
were hard for people to correctly understand (2 Peter
3:16). I believe if I had access to the information
being omitted by the ellipses we would see that B.H.
Roberts was stating that we the LDS Church has never
taught the false Adam God theory, but that the true
Adam God theory was taught was never “accepted by the
Church as her doctrine” means that it was never
canonized. So in actuality Elder Roberts is not
contradicting himself at all.
Blood Atonement
http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai048.html
Blood Atonement and the Origin
of Plural Marriage
pamphlet
DOD pp. 136-138,150-151
Blood atonement according to the definition given by
President Joseph Fielding Smith on FD p.74-75 is
basically the same thing as capital punishment. While
Mr. Ralston goes on to great lengths to prove from the
Scriptures that Christ has the power to forgive sins
through his own atonement, he misses the point that
President Joseph Fielding Smith and the Scriptures
themselves make. The point is that “man may commit
grievous sins--according to his light and
knowledge--that will place him beyond the reach of the
atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he
must sacrifice his own life to atone--so far as in his
power lies--for that sin, for the blood of Christ
alone under certain circumstances will not avail.”
Note the word “atone.” The Savior has the power to
save us from our sins, not in our sins (Alma 11:37,
Helaman 5:10). Christ cannot redeem those who have
need to repent but refuse to do so. People must do all
that lies within their power to make restitution for
the damage their sins have committed. Sometime God
requires people to die because the things that they
did were of such a serious nature or the damage that
so done was so great that death is a required part of
the repentance process. Nehor in the Book of Mormon
killed Gideon, and the law the land required that
Nehor be killed. Nehor’s death in and of itself could
not atone for the sin of murder but it was a necessary
punishment under the law of the land and law of God
(Mosaic Law). When President Smith referred to those
who died to atone for their sins (FD p.80) he was not
saying that death alone made an amends for the sins
committed by the wicked men mentioned. Sins such as
murder, blasphemy, and sacrilege were punishable by
death under the Mosaic Law. No LDS leader has ever
claimed however that the punishment of death in these
cases--the punishment in and of itself--would atone
for the sins committed in the sense that having died
those would be completed absolved of any further need
for repentance or the redeeming power of God. God
expects us to do all within our power to meet the
requirements of his laws, even if one of those
requirements is death, but “we know that it is by
grace that we are saved, after all we can do.” We
might also rephrase that statement to read that it is
by Christ’s atonement that we are saved, after all we
can do, even when God requires death, such as in the
case of capital punishment (D&C 42:19). As merciful as
God is, even he cannot save us from the law of justice
if we have not done all in our power to sufficiently
comply with the Lord’s conditions of repentance. (See
Alma 42:12-25)
I find it a contradiction for Mr. Ralston to say that
Brigham Young and his associates taught that there are
some sins which the blood of Christ cannot remit while
saying the RLDS believe that “never at any place do
[the Scriptures] indicate that there is any hope for a
man who lives in such sin that he is beyond the
atoning power of the Master.” (FD p.77)
Now when all is said and done Christ will ultimately
determine what he will and will not forgive, but the
Scriptures do indicate that there are some sins which
are unforgivable or unpardonable. See Matthew 12:31,
Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10, Alma 39:6 D&C 42:18, and D&C
84:33-41. To state that Christ will forgive anything
when he and his servants have taught otherwise is
unscriptural.
Chapter 5 & 6: Polygamy
Explanatory References
*http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai049.html
*http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.html
*http://www.i4m.com/think/history/joseph_smith_sex.htm
*http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm
*Blood
Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage
pamphlet
*E&R pp. 340-344
*ACMQ pp. 60-61
*DOD pp. 71-75
*Ensign, May 1998: “Have You Been Saved?”
*One Nation Under Gods pp. 459-465,616-617
Abraham as polygamist
While it is true that there is no direct statement in
the Bible that God commanded Abraham to have a child
with Hagar, neither is there any direct statement
saying that God forbade him from doing so. There are
some important things to remember about Abraham.
Abraham was a prophet, a man who conversed with God
(Genesis 12-18,22). It’s hard to believe that a man of
such a great spiritual stature, and held in such high
regard among his descendants, would have committed
adultery so easily. Surely a man such as he would have
known that the Lord has always treated the sin of
adultery as one of the worst sins a person can commit.
(See 1 Corinthians 6:9, Alma 39:1-5, D&C 42:24.) Just
as we have no direct command for Abraham to take
another wife, we have no statement saying that Abraham
repented of his “adultery” or that the Lord condemned
him for taking Hagar to wife. I find it much more
believable that Abraham would not have chosen have
sexual relations with Hagar unless the Lord gave His
clear permission or command on the matter. To say that
Abraham committed adultery with Hagar simply because
it was an acceptable custom of the day portrays
Abraham as an ignorant fool, one who thinks little of
the Lord’s commandments. I cannot see Abraham as
either a fool or a man who holds little regard for
what the Lord would have him do. Thankfully however
the Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith that
Abraham took Hagar to wife because the Lord
sanctioned it.
Isaac and Moses as polygamists
Excluding D&C 132, there is no conclusive evidence
that these men were or were not polygamists based on
the information we have today.
Jacob as polygamist
The same arguments I’ve made for Abraham not engaging
in the practice of plural marriage unless commanded by
the Lord I would also make for Jacob.
David and Solomon as polygamists
Review DOD pp. 71-75. Mr. Ralston quotes the Bible
passage where the prophet Nathan speaks in the name of
the Lord stating God gave David his wives, but then he
turns around and says that “there is nothing that
actually says that God gave David the wives....” This
is clearly a contradiction. Is Mr. Ralston saying that
the prophet Nathan is a liar? We do have Nathan, a bon
a fide prophet, speaking in the name of the Lord
stating something as fact, but we have no scriptural
evidence that Nathan is a liar. Just because there is
no other passage stating God had given such-and-such
women to David for wives doesn’t preclude the
possibility that it happened. As for me, I choose to
accept Nathan as an honest man and a prophet of God.
For a person to imply that a Nathan the prophet
speaking int he name of the Lord doesn’t know what
he’s talking about just because one doesn’t agree with
what he has to say is treading on dangerous ground.
Amulek as polygamist
Before he met up with Alma we know that Amulek was not
what one would term a righteous man. Amulek himself
admitted that he was rebelling against God. If he did
have multiple wives then he did so without the
sanction of God. Whether or not he did have multiple
wives is in my opinion irrelevant.
On FD p. 116 Ralston claims that the “otherwise”
clause has to do with pride as a plural marriage. I
must disagree with his interpretation of the passage
that Jacob 2:30 has to do with pride because in verse
22 of the same chapter Jacob clearly stated: And now I
make an end of speaking unto concerning this pride.
Jacob was clearly ending his discussion of pride and
moving on to a different topic. What did Jacob really
mean when he quoted the Lord as saying “otherwise they
shall hearken unto these things”? He meant that “there
shall not any man among you have save it be one wife;
and concubines he shall have none” unless the Lord
commands for it to be so (Jacob 2:27,30).
Some of the most significant questions to be answered
about plural marriage are whether Joseph Smith
actually practiced plural marriage, and whether his
wife Emma knew about it. Based on all that I’ve read
I’ve come to the conclusion that Joseph Smith having
more than one wife is pretty much a documented fact.
For a condensed version of the evidence supporting
these claims you can go to this web site:
http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/home.htm
The above mentioned site cites three books from which
it takes most of its information. They are the
following:
*Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith by Linda King Newell
and Valeen Tippetts Avery. I’ve read this book in its
entirety. It helped me to understand how Emma Smith
knew about Joseph’s involvement in polygamy and why
she denied knowing about it.
*In Sacred Loneliness: The Plural Wives of Joseph
Smith by Todd Compton. I’ve read the majority of this
book. The author gets the facts right with his
documentation who Joseph’s wives were and events in
their lives, but Compton’s interpretations of why
events happened are often wrong)
*Mormon Polygamy: A History by Richard Van Wagoner
If anyone reading this review would like to try and
convince me that Joseph Smith was still not a
polygamist I will need convincing arguments that
refute what is written in the three above mentioned
books.
Another important thing that I recommend that you read
is the following essay:
*Polygamy, Prophets, and Prevarication: Frequently and
Rarely Asked Questions about the Initiation, Practice,
and Cessation of Plural Marriage in The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints by Gregory Smith,
MD: http://www.fairlds.org/apol/misc/misc39.html
Dr. Smith’s essay really helped me to understand why
Joseph Smith and other LDS members lied about their
involvement in plural marriage and why that lying was
justified.
On page FD p.93 and elsewhere Ralston states that the
LDS believe that polygamy is essential for salvation.
There are at least two things wrong with making such a
statement. First, salvation can have a least 6
different meanings in LDS terminology (see article
Have You Been Saved?). To Latter-Day Saints the term
exaltation or eternal life necessarily implies
salvation, but salvation doesn’t necessarily imply
eternal life. Second, even though some LDS leaders
have made statements saying the plural marriage will
be required for exaltation, and they may be true,
doesn’t necessarily mean that most LDS members know
about this. No one can say that the LDS believe such
and such a thing when the vast majority of them have
never heard of the doctrine. Though I personally
believe the doctrine that plural marriage will be
required for eternal life at soon point in the future,
a couple things should be kept in mind.
1) This doctrine is not “official” church doctrine.
(See official doctrine explanation from Chapter 1
commentary.)
2) Plural marriage would only be practiced in the
Celestial Kingdom. The gift of charity is required for
entrance into the
Celestial Kingdom (see Ether 12:34). Those who possess
charity must have conquered lust (3 Nephi
12:27-30;Moroni 7:45-48). Therefore lust will not be
an issue when plural marriage is practiced in the
Celestial Kingdom.
3) Anyone who does not wish to live the practice of
plural marriage is free to decline. No one will be
forced to do anything they don’t want to do.
Question of false prophecies of LDS Church leaders
Before any person of RLDS belief accusing any of the
LDS leaders of stating false prophecies one would do
well to remember that not all of the prophecies that
Joseph Smith made have come to pass either. (See the
material from One Nation Under Gods regarding Joseph
Smith’s “false” prophecies). One possible reason for
this is -- and I would likewise apply it to leaders of
the LDS Church -- that some prophecies are yet to be
fulfilled.
The Wilford Woodruff quote on FD p. 98 should be
examined more thoroughly before concluding that he was
a false prophet. The truth is that President Woodruff
and other Church leaders did not technically desert
their wives and children. For more information about
this and other issues relating to polygamy in the LDS
Church you need to read the article by Gregory Smith
previously mentioned.
President Woodruff was right when he predicted that
Mormonism would prosper. Of all of the rivaling sects
claiming to be the same church that Joseph Smith
founded, we are the fastest growing, the largest in
terms of membership, and the most financially
prosperous.
Even though the practice of polygamy eventually
ceased, the cessation is only temporary. Joseph Smith
also introduced the practice of the United Order in
order to fully live the law of consecration. Since
most of the people in the Church were not ready to
live the law of consecration, the practice was
eventually abandoned. The Lord gave the lesser law --
the law of tithing -- to take the place of the higher
law of consecration. We can see a parallel with the
plural marriage and monogamy. The time came when the
Lord said it was no longer necessary for the saints to
live the practice of plural marriage so he gave them
the law of monogamy -- marriage between one man and
one woman -- to take its place. The time will come
however when all those who are true saints will be
called upon to live the law of consecration as the
United Order. Just as the law of tithing is superseded
by the law of consecration, so is the practice of
monogamy to be superseded by the practice of plural
marriage. Eventually both tithing and monogamy will be
a thing of the past.
FD Chapter 6 shows that Joseph Smith and other leaders
made public statements denying polygamy. Besides Greg
Smith’s explanation of why the Church leaders lied,
Mormon Enigma also gives us additional insights. The
leaders of the early church usually denied their
involvement in polygamy by how they interpreted the
words they were using. Joseph Smith and those who had
been authorized to practice plural marriage made use
of code words whenever they spoke of the practice. To
these early saints there was a huge difference between
the unauthorized practice of polygamy and the divinely
authorized practice of plural marriage. Eliza Snow and
John Taylor later explained by they both signed the
1842 statement denying polygamy on pp. 128-129 of
Mormon Enigma.
Isaac Sheen’s statement of Joseph Smith’s involvement
in polygamy is not damaging to the Latter-Day Saints
at all. We don’t believe that Joseph ever repented for
having more than one wife. Nor do we believe that he
said that he revelations on the subject and said they
came from the devil. Isaac Sheen’s testimony would
only be damaging to the RLDS as an RLDS admission that
Joseph practiced polygamy and said it was wrong.
Chapter 7: Salvation for the Dead
Explanatory References
*“The ‘Reorganized’ Church vs. Salvation for the Dead”
by Elder Joseph F. Smith, Jr.
*http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai128.html
*EJST pp. 64,69-71
*DOD p. 52-53
I find it contradictory for Mr. Ralston to concede on
one hand that baptism for the dead was at one time
taught and authorized by the Prophet Joseph Smith, and
then on the other hand say that baptism for the dead
is contradictory to the gospel because “no man can
obey or disobey the gospel for any other man!” One
thing however is for sure: if baptism for the dead
contradicts the principle that only Christ can atone
for another's sins, then Joseph Smith introduced a
false practice. If Joseph Smith introduced a false
practice then that would make him a false prophet.
Hence if the RLDS are going to condemn the practice of
baptism for the dead they must also condemn Joseph
Smith for teaching such an “unscriptural” practice.
The difference between each person being accountable
for their own works and the ability of others to aid
in the salvation process is missed by the Mr. Ralston.
It is true that each man will be judged by his own
works. However there are two important exceptions to
this rule of each man having to answer alone for his
own sins. First, after we as people have done all that
we can do we are then saved by the grace of Christ. In
other words, Jesus Christ did for us what we ourselves
could not do in bringing about the infinite atonement.
Christ’s vicarious work satisfies the demands of
justice after all that we can do. Hence the man Jesus
Christ has given us an example of one man taking upon
himself the accountability of other people. A second
example of transference of accountability can be seen
when the servants of God are commanded to teach the
people to conform their lives to God’s word. If God’s
servants neglect their responsibility to teach the
word of God then the servants will be accountable for
the blood of the people (2 Nephi 9:44, Jacob 1:19,
Mosiah 2:27-28, Acts 18:6, 20:26-27, D&C 112:33). On
the other hand, when the Lord’s servants do their duty
to declare the word are people accept the word by
changing their lives, the Lord’s servants have acted
as instruments in the hands of God to help bring about
salvation to the people. The action of preaching of
the word of God in and of itself did not save the
people, nor does it atone for their sins. In a similar
way, baptism for the dead allow others to be
instruments in the hands of God to help bring about
salvation to those people who have sinned and have not
complied with the requirement to be baptized (4th
Article of Faith, John 3:5, 3 Nephi 11:33-34, EJST
69-71).
FD p.161 “Zion shall not be moved out of her place”
refers to the Church’s collective relationship with
God rather than only a physical location since the
scripture also says that Zion’s “children are
scattered” (i.e. in a physically different location).
Physical Limitations on Baptism for the Dead
Supposing that there have been 153 billion people who
have ever lived since the creation of Adam, the
challenge of performing the vicarious ordinances is
much more within reach today then it was when FD was
written. One should take into account there are over
12 million LDS members today and expected to continue
rapid growth as per non-LDS sociologist Rodney Stark’s
predictions (see footnote reference from the article
entitled Mormon Scholarship, Apologetics, And
Evangelical Neglect: Losing The Battle And Not Knowing
It? The article can be found at:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3803/is_199810/ai_n8808757/pg_10);
there are currently over 130 temples and more are on
the way; that 3 to 4 baptisms a minute are possible,
depending on speed; that all children who died before
the age of accountability are excluded from the need
for baptism; and that any work left undone will be
performed during the millennium. The advent of
computers and the Internet have also greatly increased
the ability to find and collect the information
necessary in order to accomplish the vicarious
ordinances.
Fullness of the Gospel Given
If the “fullness of the gospel” means that all gospel
doctrines and instructions from God are contained in
the Bible and Book of Mormon then there would have
been no need for the Doctrine and Covenants or the
direction from a living prophet. What the phrase
“fullness of the gospel” being in the Bible and Book
of Mormon really means is that those doctrines
necessary for the salvation of man are mentioned
and/or explained within these two books.
To deny that God cannot give further revelation and
instructions after 1831 is to limit God and say that
He has nothing more to teach us. If we are to limit
the word of God to everything up until 1831 then all
revelations after that received from Joseph Smith and
those after him must be discarded. The fullness of the
gospel logically does not mean totality of gospel
doctrine.
Justice of God
For every broken law, for every sin committed, a
penalty must be paid. The law of justice requires
this. God is a merciful being but he is also perfectly
just. We know from the Book of Mormon that “the Spirit
of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good
from evil” (Moroni 7:16). Note that the scripture does
not say that a person needs to be a member of the true
church or even needs to be a Christian in order to
know the difference between good and evil. Though all
people do not know the difference between good and
evil as well as others, since some may be Muslims,
other Catholics, other agnostics, etc., this does not
mean that they know nothing concerning what is right
and wrong. Everyone except children under the age of
accountability and those who are mentally incompetent
have a partial knowledge of the will of God concerning
their lives because the Spirit of Christ activates
their conscience and lets them know when what is right
and wrong. The Spirit of Christ activating our
conscience is one of the ways God tells us that we
have done something wrong--that something is against
his will. God will not punish people for not paying
their tithing or for profanity if they have never been
taught otherwise, but he will look differently when we
as people purposely hurt others without just cause,
because they in causing others harm conscience tells
them what they are doing is wrong. The atonement
covers the sins of those who have died insofar as they
do not know the will of God. To say that the atonement
covers every sin committed without any effort on the
part of the sinner when had at least a partial
knowledge of the will of God would be to deny the
justice of God. Mercy cannot rob justice. Those who
are without the law in Moroni chapter 8 refers to
those are mentally incapable of discerning between
right and wrong. Joseph Fielding McConkie and Robert
Millet explain this doctrine in greater detail:
The law that is here being referred to is
accountability to the gospel law. It is not only
little children who are incapable of sinning because
of their lack of accountability; so also are those who
are mentally deficient and thereby not accountable
because they are not physically, mentally, and/or
spiritually mature enough to repent (see D&C 29:49-50;
see also Elder Bruce R. McConkie's discussion of this
issue in "The Salvation of Little Children," Ensign
April 1977, pp. 6-7).
Little children and the mentally handicapped are but
two groups of the larger body of people who died
without full accountability and the blessing of
knowing the law. Although their circumstances are
somewhat different, the Atonement still offers them a
great blessing. By virtue of the mercy of the Savior
they are not condemned for not abiding a law of which
they knew not. ‘Where there is no law given there is
no punishment,’ declared Jacob, ‘and where there is no
punishment there is no condemnation; and where there
is no condemnation the mercies of the Holy One of
Israel have claim upon them, because of the atonement;
for they are delivered by the power of him’ (2 Nephi
9:25; see also Commentary 1:250-52). Doctrinal
Commentary on the Book of Mormon, vol. 4
Joseph Fielding McConkie, Robert L. Millet
The Lord stated that “repentance and baptism [are
necessary] unto those who are accountable and capable
of committing sin.” Men who have sinned and died
knowing at least some of the will of God concerning
them does not release them from all accountability for
having knowingly disobeyed. The Latter Day Saints
believe that each person is punished only according to
the knowledge they have. This is teaching is
consistent with the Scriptures (D&C 82:3;Luke
12:47-48). Children under 8 and the mentally
handicapped are not sufficiently capable of
understanding the will of God so the atonement of
Christ covers their sins.
Unjust Waiting Time
If one claims it unjust that the dead should have to
wait a long time in order to have someone baptized for
them, one could also claim that Christ was unjust for
forcing the those had died in the days of Noah to wait
until Jesus came to the spirit world so that the
gospel could be preached to them (1 Peter 3:18-20).
Misc. Thoughts
Why require baptism at all if God could save us
without it? God said that it’s necessary for everyone
who has gained a mortal body, has committed sin, and
is capable of repentance. Little children cannot
repent (Moroni 8:19) because their minds our not
mature enough to sufficiently understand the how’s and
why’s of repentance. Think of it this way. Our
country’s laws will treat a minor who kills another
person differently than an adult who commits murder.
Why? It’s because a child is generally not mature
enough to understand the consequences of his/her
actions, while an adult on the other hand is
sufficiently mature. In a similar way, God has
determined that children should not be baptized until
they are 8 years old (D&C 68:25) since most children
are not yet sufficiently mature to understand
repentance and baptism before that time. One could
argue that some 7 year olds are old enough to
understand repentance and baptism, but God made the
rule of all 0 to 7 year olds innocent of sin no matter
what they do, not me. The Book of Mormon makes a
distinction between those that have “the law” (meaning
persons who have a knowledge of all the commandments
of God--see 2 Nephi 9:27), and those who have “no law”
(Moroni 8:22), such as in the case of little children.
Common sense tells us that people just don’t only know
all of the commandments or they know nothing of the
commandments like children. Everyone who is over the
age of accountability (8 yrs. +) and is not mentally
handicapped knows at least some of the “the law”
though their understanding is incomplete. For example,
a Jew or a Christian who has never heard of the Book
of Mormon but still knows that he/she ought to keep
the 10 Commandments will still be held accountable if
he/she breaks them. Under the RLDS theology I’m
picking up from Mr. Ralston, those who are ignorant of
the true gospel but commit willful and knowing
disobedience of any of the 10 Commandments would
receive no punishment from God. After all, they were
not under “the law”! This idea is absurd as it denies
the ability of God to administer justice to those who
have knowingly and willfully sinned. What the
Scriptures do teach is that God judges each person
accordingly to their works and knowledge (see Luke
12:47-48; Romans 2:12, 3 Nephi 9:13, D&C 82:3). Each
person over the age of accountability and that has no
serious mental impediment is capable of some kind of
discernment between right and wrong (Moroni 7:16).
Therefore they can know that some things are right and
wrong without needing to be taught by another what
they are. Since to knowingly not do the right thing is
committing sin (James 4:17), and God requires a
penalty from individuals for knowing acts of
disobedience, it follows that those who knowingly sin
need repentance, and that those who need repentance
will also need baptism (Moroni 8:25).
FD p. 176: Just as when missionaries go out to preach
the gospel they often do not know who has already
rejected the gospel, those who are being baptized for
the dead do not know if those for whom they are being
baptized have already rejected the gospel. Baptism is
offered to all those who have ever lived as
accountable individuals; it is up to those persons to
accept or reject. The LDS Church has never taught that
anyone will get a second chance by rejecting the
gospel in this life and then accepting it later after
they’re dead. Everyone will be given a fair chance to
accept or reject the gospel, and no one will be given
a second chance to accept the gospel after already
rejected a fair chance to accept it.
The RLDS may say that the Prophet’s letters are not
considered revelations but that doesn’t change the
fact that his words explaining that the doctrine of
baptism for the dead were in their very own Doctrine
and Covenants (RDC 110), or rather which were in the
RLDS Doctrine and Covenants until 1970 (per
http://www.computercontrolsystems.com/Scriptures).
Regarding whether Elijah was to teach baptism for the
dead, it is true that Moroni gave a different version
of Malachi 4:6 from that found in the King James
Version of the Bible, however it should be remembered
that the version Moroni gave is different from that
found in the Joseph Smith Translation (JST) of Malachi
4 (Inspired Version p. 882), is different from the
Book of Mormon version of Malachi 4 given through
Jesus Christ (3 Nephi 24:1; chapter 25), and is
different from the version that Elijah himself gave
when he appeared in the Kirtland Temple in 1836 (D&C
110:13-16). I’ll accept that there may be a different
wording possible of Malachi 4 from what Moroni said,
however it would be presumptuous to say that Jesus,
Elijah, and Joseph Smith’s versions (JST Malachi 4;
not to mention his interpretation of Malachi in D&C
128) are wrong simply because Moroni gave a different
wording (Galatians 1:8). Given the choices, I choose
to accept that there are two possible wordings of
Malachi 4 but that the Prophet Joseph Smith’s
interpretation is more correct than Mr. Ralston’s
interpretation.
Chapter 8: Mountain of the Lord’s House, Revelation,
and Common Consent
Explanatory References
*DCIM pp. 54,147,240, 298, N-2
*Ensign November 2005: “On Zion’s Hill”
*1000 Evidences p. 290-291
*E&R pp. 345-349, 100-102
*http://www.davidgorton.com/Gramps/Adam%20&%20Eve/a&e005.htm
Mr. Ralston’s says in FD p. 188 that the United States
is the greatest kingdom. Joseph Smith’s interpretation
of Daniel 2:44 found in D&C 65:2 refutes Ralston’s
opinion of America being the greatest kingdom
established in the last days. By Ralston’s own
admission the kingdom of God (mountain of the Lord’s
house) will be established in the top of the
mountains. But what is the top of the mountains that
Isaiah referred to? Interestingly enough name of Utah
was chosen by U.S. President Fillmore to name the
territory resided by the Mormons, a name which the was
contrary to the one requested by the LDS Church. In
the Ute Indian language Utah means “home or location
on the mountain top.” The meaning of the word Utah was
not discovered until after the fact.
If Ralston insists the RLDS can use “prophetic
terminology” to interpret Isaiah 2:2, what right does
he have to say that the LDS cannot also do the same?
Isaiah’s prophecy was fulfilled through the Ute
language name give by U.S. President Fillmore and was
not intended to mean the literal highest mountain.
If the CCR is the true church of Christ, then where
are the revelations it’s supposed to be receiving? The
COC claims to still receive revelation and add them to
their Doctrine and Covenants, but the LDS and the CCR
would both agree that any additions made to the COC
Doctrine and Covenants come from man and are not
inspired by God. I can’t help but wonder if the COC
are inventing their own revelations to add to the
Doctrine and Covenants, how does one know for sure if
D&C revelations received before the split between the
CCR and the COC were ever inspired by God in the first
place?
Chapter 9: Tithing, Temples, Blacks and the
Priesthood, and Rebaptism
Explanatory References
*Ensign May 2005: “Tithing -- A Commandment Even for
the Destitute”
*http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai127.html and all links
on this page
*TG pp. 216-221
*EJST pp. 655-663
*Note the statements made in the affidavits cited in
Blood Atonement and the Origin of Plural Marriage
which claim Joseph Smith established the endowment
ceremony.
*http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai080.html
*http://www.blacklds.org/priesthood.html
*ATGQ
2:184-188
*ATGQ 3:205-206
Tithing is the one issue for which I am not providing
an explanation that I found completely satisfactory.
Beside the Ensign article provided in the Explanatory
References I will just say this: The LDS system of
tithing does not take “the mother and children’s
bread” no more than Elijah took away the mother and
child’s bread in 1 Kings 17. Though the widow in that
story was not paying tithing, the principle is the
same. Many LDS can share experiences about how they
thought they didn’t have enough to give to pay their
tithing, paid it anyway, then witnessed the blessings
of the Lord come to them in such a way that they have
had enough to meet all of their other needs, in most
cases without financial aid from the Church. The
principle I see at work with LDS tithing system is to
seek the Kingdom of God first then expect the Lord to
help us to obtain our needs (Matthew 6:33), while the
RLDS tithing system is just the opposite--pay for your
needs first then tithe off what’s left.
New Names
On p.223-223 of FD. Mr. Ralston makes the mistake of
saying that Revelation 2:17 is the same new name
referred to in Mosiah 5:8-12. Mr. Ralston has
evidently never read D&C 130:10-11 where God through
Joseph Smith clarified what Revelation 2:17 was
talking about.
Then the white stone mentioned in Revelation 2:17,
will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who
receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher
order of kingdoms will be made known;
And a white stone is given to each of those who come
into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name
written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth
it. The new name is the key word.
Obviously if no man knows what the name on the white
stone is except the person who receives the white
stone, the name is not going to be the same for
everybody who gets a white stone. My understanding of
LDS doctrine is that there is a new name we take upon
ourselves when we are baptized, which the name of
Christ (Mosiah 18:10, D&C 20:77,79). Christ becomes
our spiritual father in the sense that he has granted
us spiritual rebirth. Like our earthly fathers, we
take upon ourselves the last name of the man who is
our biological or legally adopted father. The same
thing could be said of the name of Christ. We are
adopted as his spiritual sons and daughters when we
are baptized and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.
As for the new name in the temple, that can be
paralleled to new first names give to people by the
Lord throughout biblical history: Abram to Abraham,
Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, Simon to Peter, Saul
to Paul. These new names did not replaced the name of
Christ which all true disciples of the Lord are
required to take upon themselves, but it was in
addition to the new name of Christ. Thus, in Mormon
doctrine, a faithful disciple receives two new names,
which could be likened to receiving a new first name
and a new last name.
Peter As A Bigot
One should read all of Acts 10 in order in order to
see the full context of Acts 10:34-35. One should also
keep in mind that Peter as a Jew was taught to avoid
certain associations with Gentiles because they
violated Jewish laws that made Jews ritually unclean.
I’ll now quote from the LDS Bible Dictionary for
further explanation of what was considered by Jews to
be clean and unclean:
The distinction that the Israelites drew between clean
and unclean had a great effect upon the whole of their
religious and social life. It applied in the first
place to food. Certain animals, birds, and fishes were
regarded as clean and might be eaten, while others
were unclean and were forbidden. See Lev. 11; Deut.
14: 3-20. The flesh of any animal dying of itself or
torn by wild animals was also forbidden (Ex. 22: 31;
Lev. 17: 15; Lev. 22: 8; Deut. 14: 21). No Israelite
might eat blood, which was regarded as containing the
life; it had to be poured out and covered up (Gen. 9:
4; Lev. 17: 10-14; Lev. 19: 16; Deut. 12: 16, 23-25;
Deut. 15: 23). Fat also was forbidden; it belonged to
God (Lev. 7: 22-27).
For seven or fourteen days after the birth of a child
the mother was unclean (Lev. 12). Uncleanness also
resulted from the touch of a dead body (Lev. 11: 8;
Lev. 21: 1-4, 11; Lev. 22: 4-7; Deut. 21: 22). The
leper was unclean and communicated uncleanness to
everything he touched (Lev. 13: 1 - 46: 14). In New
Testament times, to enter the house of a gentile or to
eat food with him involved uncleanness (John 18: 28;
Acts 10: 28; Acts 11: 23). So long as a person was
unclean he was cut off from the congregation. In
ordinary cases of uncleanness it was sufficient to
remain in seclusion till the evening and then to wash
the body. In certain cases a sin offering was
necessary.
Uncleanness referred to being ceremonially or ritually
unclean, and should not be taken to mean that the
touching of a dead body or the bearing of children was
morally evil. These regulations (except the
prohibition against blood, which was given as early as
Noah’s day) were introduced in the Law of carnal
commandments (of performances and ordinances) of the
law of Moses; being fulfilled by the atonement of
Jesus Christ, they are no longer required of the
believers. See Mark 7: 15-23; Acts 10: 9-16, 28; Acts
15: 29; 1 Tim. 4: 4; 2 Ne. 25: 24-27; Mosiah 13:
29-32.
It would have been extremely unlikely that Peter would
have let easily abandoned the requirement that under
Mosaic law he must never enter the house of a gentile
or eat food that involved uncleanness. It was a
tradition he had lived with all his life. We know from
many places in the New Testament that many Jewish
converts to Christianity had a hard time letting go of
the practice of circumcision. Even though the Law of
Moses had been fulfilled after Jesus’s death, Peter
did not go to eat “unclean” food or keep company with
Cornelius until after commanded to do so by the Lord
(Acts 10:9-16,28). So while it is true that Peter saw
the Gentiles in a different light after meeting with
Cornelius, it is also important to remember that Peter
would not have meet with Cornelius had not the Lord
given Peter a revelation.
If one considers Peter to be a bigot because of how he
viewed and acted towards Gentiles, we could apply that
logic to the Savior and call him bigot as well. In
Matthew 15 we see Jesus telling a gentile woman that
he wouldn’t meet with her because she was not an
Israelite (i.e., because she was a gentile; see verse
24). Jesus even refers to this woman as a dog (verse
26). Even though Jesus’s actions appear to indictate
that he was prejudiced, I would not label him as a
bigot or a sinner for what he said. Likewise, I do not
condemn Peter for his so-called prejudice against the
gentiles before the revelation he received in Acts 10.
One other issue that was mentioned somewhere in FD
that I have not yet responded is that of LDS Church
members getting rebaptized after the death of Joseph
Smith. President Joseph Fielding Smith gave this
explanation of about rebaptism in his work Doctrines
of Salvation, vol. 2:
REBAPTISM
TWOFOLD PURPOSE OF BAPTISM. The question has been
asked why rebaptism was established in the day of the
Prophet Joseph Smith, why it was continued for a
number of years in Utah under the direction of
President Brigham Young, and why it is now abandoned?
There is really in the Church no such thing as
rebaptism. Baptism, as we understand it, is one of the
cardinal principles of the gospel, commanded primarily
for the remission of sins, and, secondarily, as the
door by which we enter into the Church. It was first
made known and taught, as one of the ordinances of the
gospel, to Adam who was commanded to instruct his
children and call upon them to be baptized for the
remission of sins.
The ordinance of baptism was known and practiced in
ancient Israel, and in all ages of the world, as one
of the essential ordinances of the gospel where the
gospel has been found on the earth. It is just as
necessary today as at any other period in the history
of the world, for without it the sinner cannot receive
a remission of his sins and be admitted into the
kingdom of God.
PIONEERS AND OTHERS REBAPTIZED. It is true that during
the administration of the Prophet Joseph Smith some
members of the Church who were in transgression were
again baptized, without first having lost their
membership by excommunication. And so it has been from
that day down to the present, where the repentant
transgressor has desired that the ordinance be
performed for the remission of sins. Frederick G.
Williams was rebaptized and on August 5, 1838, was
confirmed at Far West, Missouri, although he was then
a member of the Church. 26
After the arrival of the Pioneers in the Salt Lake
Valley, and subsequently for a considerable period,
all those who entered the valley were baptized anew at
the request of President Brigham Young who, with the
Council of the Twelve, set the example to the people
who were gathering from all parts of the world.
PIONEERS RENEWED COVENANTS BY BAPTISM. There were
various reasons for this action on the part of
President Young and the leading brethren. They, stated
that it was for the "renewal of their covenants. They
came into the valley rejoicing after many trials and
untold hardships from a land where they had been
subject to mob violence and dictation on the part of
enemies who denied to them the privilege guaranteed in
the Constitution of our land, to worship God according
to the dictates of conscience.
After their arrival in this western land, they were
free from molestation, and in humility they approached
the Lord, not because of transgression, but because of
thankfulness for their deliverance from wicked
enemies, and knowing no better way to express their
gratitude decided to make covenant with the Lord that
from that time forward they would serve him and keep
his commandments. As a token of this covenant they
entered the water and were baptized and confirmed,
renewing their covenants and obligations as members of
the Church.
LOST RECORDS LED TO REBAPTISM. Another reason that
caused these brethren to take such a step and make the
renewal of the covenant general, applying to all who
came into the valley, was the fact that during their
drivings, mobbings, persecutions, and final exodus,
many branch and ward records had been lost. When the
people entered the Salt Lake Valley and sought a
standing in the communities of the saints, many of
them were without certificates of baptism and were
unable to point to the records from whence they came
to show their proper claim to full fellowship among
the saints. As it is essential that a record of the
members be kept, it was thought well to have all such
do their first works over again, that the record might
be made, and thus no question could be raised in later
years regarding their standing in the Church. To make
the matter fair and avoid feelings that otherwise
might have arisen, the requirement was made of all.
SOME WAYWARD SAINTS REBAPTIZED. Another reason was the
fact that following the martyrdom of Joseph and Hyrum
Smith some members of the Church had actually strayed
away and in their darkness had followed after false
shepherds such as James J. Strang, William Smith,
Zenas H. Gurley, and Jason W. Briggs, not knowing what
to do and not being firmly founded in the faith by
which they could recognize the true Shepherd. After
their repentance and return to the fold, they desired
to renew their covenants and be again established in
their full standing in the Church. For these reasons
and others of lesser import the practice of
rebaptizing all who entered the Valley of Salt Lake
prevailed at that early day.
REBAPTISM NOT ESSENTIAL TO SALVATION. As already
stated, baptism is for the remission of sins on the
part of those who have not come into the Church and
the door by which they enter. Those who have been
baptized and confirmed members of the Church, who
transgress, may receive the remission of their sins
through the atonement of our Savior on conditions of
their humility and repentance, without again entering
the waters of baptism.
Should a person sin to that degree that it would be
necessary to deprive him of his membership in the
Church, it would be necessary, of course, for him
after repenting again to enter the Church through
baptism. Rebaptism as understood in the question has
not been done away, for even today where persons feel
that they have transgressed to such a degree that they
cannot conscientiously claim membership in the Church,
and request baptism, even as new members, in order to
be restored to fellowship among the saints, their
request may be granted.
It is unnecessary, however, to rebaptize persons
merely as a renewal of their covenants every time they
transgress in order that they may obtain forgiveness,
for this would greatly cheapen this sacred ordinance
and weaken its effectiveness. One baptism by water for
the remission of sins should be enough, and there are
other means by which sins may be forgiven for those
who have made covenant with the Lord, provided they do
not sin away their right to a standing in the Church.
The rebaptism spoken of in section 22 of the Doctrine
and Covenants applied to those who had been baptized
into some other organization, without authority from
the Lord and who afterwards desired to unite with the
Church and he accepted on their unauthorized baptism,
which had been performed by one without the priesthood
and power to officiate in gospel ordinances. 27
REBAPTISM AMONG NEPHITES. When Christ appeared to the
Nephites on this continent, he commanded them to be
baptized, although they had been baptized previously
for the remission of their sins. We read how Nephi
beheld angels who came and ministered to him daily;
how he baptized all who came to be baptized for the
remission of sins; how he organized the Church; and
how he even raised his brother from the dead, since he
held the priesthood. 28 Then we read that the Savior
commanded Nephi and the people to be baptized again,
because he had organized anew the Church under the
gospel. 29 Before that it had been organized under the
law. 30
REBAPTISM OF JOSEPH SMITH. For the same reason Joseph
Smith and those who had been baptized prior to April
6, 1830, were again baptized on the day of the
organization of the Church. Joseph Smith and Oliver
Cowdery were baptized on the 15th day of May, 1829,
Samuel Smith a few days later, Hyrum Smith a little
later, and a few others, before the Church was
organized. That baptism was for the remission of sins.
When the Church was organized, each of the brethren
who organized the Church, and the others who had been
baptized, were baptized again. They had to be in order
to come into the Church by the door. Suppose Joseph
Smith had overlooked that. It is just a little thing,
but how vital it is. You will find all through the
ministry of Joseph Smith that all these little things
are there; not a thing is overlooked that is vital to
the story. 31
WHY ALMA IMMERSED HIMSELF. Alma was baptized and held
the priesthood before the coming of Abinadi, but he
became involved with other priests under the reign of
the wicked King Noah, and when he baptized Helem, he
felt he needed a cleansing himself so he buried
himself in the water as a token of full repentance. 32
26. History of the Church, vol. 3, p. 55.
27. Era, vol. 20, pp. 916-918.
28. 3 Ne. 7:18-26.
29. 3 Ne. 19:7-15.
30. 3 Ne. 9:15-22; 11:10-40; 12:18-19; 15:4-10.
31. Church News, Mar. 30, 1935, pp. 6, 8.
32. Personal Correspondence;Mosiah 17:1-4; 18:1-29.
Concluding Statement
Mr. Ralston has failed to provide me a convincing
argument on any of his major objections against the
doctrines of the LDS Church. Instead he has helped to
strengthen my testimony that the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-Day Saints is indeed the continuation
of the same Church of Jesus Christ restored through
the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Regardless of whether I’ve been able to persuade
anyone else that the LDS Church is or could be the
true church, I would be willing to hear the opinions
of those who would disagree with any of the material
in this review, provided that they offer their
comments in writing. I’m also willing to entertain the
possibility of continuing to dialogue with those in
the RLDS camp of thought.
If this review has raised questions or sparked a
desire to learn more about the truth of The Church of
Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and its doctrines,
and one wishes to look into learning more by oneself,
then I recommend checking out the following resources:
www.mormon.org
www.lds.org
www.deseretbook.com
www.fairlds.org
www.farmsresearch.com
My Other Pages
LDS Conversion Stories (Home)