Sunday, December 31, 2006

Out with the Old [2006] In with the New [2007] - Happy New Years

Just a simple note to say I wish everyone a happy New Year and may all have a better year than last year. It is my hope that all people of all nations will come closer to Christ and bare witness of his greatness and atoning grace. I continue that thought with my hope that all will be blessed with health and happiness of all that read this and their families and friends. May any financial strains be eased and the burdens be lifted in your faith in Christ. May each person find it in their heart this year to be more charitable than last year.

I have a greater hope for world peace, may we put on the armor of God and come to a unity of faith. Thank everyone who has read and posted to this blog.

H a p p y N e w Y e a r s and W e l c o m e 2 0 0 7

Which Day is the Sabbath Day - Saturday or Sunday

Some denominations today believe that much of Christianity is observing the wrong day of the week as the Sabbath. They contend that Saturday is the seventh day of the week and should, according to Bible scripture, be observed as the true Sabbath [Ex 16:29-30; 20:8-11; Lev 23:1-3; Deut 5:12-15]. There are several flaws with this assertion:


  1. The research of Samuel Walter Gamble, a Methodist minister, suggests that the original Hebrew calendar was not like our modern calendar. His findings published in a study called "Sunday, the True Sabbath of God" [reprinted in Kenneth E. Coombs, The True Sabbath - Saturday or Sunday], indicates that differences in the Hebrew calendar caused a one day shift in the Sabbath each year when compared to our modern calendars. He points out that the Hebrew calendar was composed of a system of fixed date Sabbaths each seventh day until the day of Pentecost [a high holy day]. At which point, a 48 hour Sabbath was celebrated. This double Sabbath effectively shifted the Sabbath one day each year when compared to our own calendar [See also Mormon Doctrine, p. 658, Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:841; 440-441]

  2. It appears that the Sabbath day was change by early Christians to the first day of the week to commemorate the resurrection of the Lord [Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2]. Note that the resurrection day is referred to in all Greek Testaments as "Sabbath" [sabbaton] and was translated in the King James Version as "the first day of the week" to avoid confusing the two Sabbaths. John thereafter referred to it as the Lord's day to differentiate it from the Jewish Sabbath [Rev 1:10]. Both Old and New Testament scripture foretold this change [Hos 2:11; Heb 4:7-9; 10:9] and early Christians affirmed it.

    Ignatius, in about 110 AD, said that Christians were "no longer keeping the Sabbath but . . . . the Lord's day on which our life also arose through him" [Letters of Ignatius, 2:9]. Barnabas [ca 75 to 130AD] declared, "this is why we spend the eight day in celebration, the day which Jesus both arose from the dead and . . . ascended into heaven" [Epistle of Barnabas, 15:8] justin Martyr [ca 140AD] also recorded that Christian services were held on Sunday "because Jesus Christ - our redeeming Savior - rose from the dead on the same day" [First Apology, pp. 65-67]

    If this is not enough proof that the Sabbath day was changed, we can add the testimonies of Bardaimsan [b 154AD; Irenaeus [ca 178 AD]; Clement of Alexandria [ca 194 AD]; Cyprian [200-258 AD]; Origen [201 AD] and author of the Didache [80-120 AD]. Each of these men affirmed that early Christians observed the "Lord's day" on the first day of the week rather than the Jewish Sabbath [see also LDS Bible Dictionary pp. 725, 765; LeGrand Richards, A Marvelous Work and a Wonder pp. 342-50]
  3. The Latter-day Saints keep the Sunday Sabbath because the Lord so commanded them by direct revelation [D&C 59:9-13- Note: this revelation was given on Sunday; see also James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, pp 451-52; Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions, 2:58-63].
  4. Paul taught that we should let no man judge us with respect to observance of Sabbath days [Col 2:16].

The above demonstrates two things relative to revelation: first, not all revelations given to the early Church were recorded in the Bible; and second, without modern revelation, men can err in interpreting scripture and God's will today.

Saturday, December 30, 2006

Is the Bible Complete? - Portions are Missing Nephi Said So

In 1 Nephi 13:24-26 we have a claim by Nephi that portions of the gospel were lost.
Many scriptures mentioned in the modern Bible either no longer exist or have been altered to the point they are no longer accepted as authoritative. These include:
  1. The book of the covenant - Ex 24:4, 7*
  2. The book of the wars of the Lord - Num 21:14
  3. The manner of the kingdom recorded by Samuel - 1 Sam 10:25*
  4. The book of Jasher - Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18
  5. A book of statutes - 1 Sam 10:25
  6. The book of the acts of Solomon - 1 Kings 11:41
  7. The book of Samuel the seer - 1 Chron 29:29
  8. The book of Nathan the Prophet - 1 Chron 29:29; 2 Chron 9:29
  9. The book of Gad the seer - 1 Chron 29:29
  10. The prophecy of Ahijah 2 Chron 9:29
  11. The visions of Iddo the seer - 2 Chron 9:29; 12:15; 13:22
  12. The book of Shemaiah the prophet - 2 Chron 12:15
  13. The book of Jehu - 2 Cron 20:34
  14. The acts of Uzziah recorded by Isaiah - 2 Chron 26:22*
  15. The sayings of the seers - 2 Chron 33:19
  16. An epistle of Paul to the Corinthians - 1 Cor 5:9
  17. An epistle to Paul to the Ephesians- Eph 3:3
  18. An epistle to Paul to the Laodiceans - Col 4:16
  19. An additional epistle to Jude - Jude 1:3
  20. The prophecies of Enoch - Jude 1:14

Note: Listings with the "*" may be included in other books of the Bible but are not readily identifiable.

Some have objected to the above list, saying that those writing not included in the Bible must not have been truly inspired. We might then ask, why would we exclude the books of Samuel and Gad the seers, the prophecies of Ahijah and Enoch, the visions of Iddo the seer, the book of Shemaiah the Prophet, the three missing epistles of Paul, and a missing epistle of Jude? It is hard to believe that the writings of prophets , seers, and apostles would be considered uninspired, especially when they are mentioned in the scriptures as worthy of further study.

To the above list we can add missing prophecies which include: Mathew's references to a prophecy that Christ would be a Nazarene [Matt 2:23; see LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 726], a prophecy that Elias "shall first come, and restore all things" [Matt 17:10-13], and a prophecy by Jeremiah concerning teh 30 pieces of silver [Matt 27:9]. None of these prophecies is found in our modern Old Testaments. We might also add to the above prophecies reference that do not match Old Testament scripture, such as Matthew's quote from Jesus referring to Zecharias, son of Barachias, being slain between the temple and the alter [Mat 23:35; see also Jesus the Christ, p. 567, note 9], Johns reference to a scripture about envy [James 4:5], and John's reference to wicked deeds of Balaam not specifically mentioned in the Old Testament [Rev 2:14].

Stephen E. Robinson makes an interesting point regarding the Bible "canon" which deserves mention:

The real Achilles heal of canonical exclusion . . . lies in the idea that there is one single Christian Canon or one single Christian Bible, for historically there has not been one Christian canon or one Christian Bible, but many. For example, just before 200 AD someone in the Christian Church at Rome wrote a list of books that were accepted as canonical by the Roman church at that time. A copy of this canon list was discovered in 1740 by Lodovico Muratori in the Ambrosian Library in Milan, and for this reason it is called the Muratorian Canon. According to it, the Roman church at the end of the second century did not consider Hebrews James, 1 Peter, or 1 Peter to be scripture, and they accepted only two of the letters of John, although we cannot be sure which two. They did accept as canonical, however , two works now considered to be outside the New Testament, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Wisdom of Solomon. Clearly their canon of scripture was different from that of modern Christians, but does that mean that the second and third century Roman Church was not Christian? Remember that they were the same people who were dying in the arenas for the sake of Christ. Can anyone seriously argue that they weren't Christians just because their canon was different?

The famous church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, writing about the 300AD, proposed another canon [Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.25.1-7]. He listed only twenty one books as "recognized", and listed Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude, and Revelation as questionable or spurious . . . Metzger summarizes, "The Eastern Church as reported by Eusebius about 325AD, was in considerable doubt concerning the authority of most of the Catholic Epistles as well as the Apocalypse" [The Canon of the New Testament, p. 209].

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus rejected the book of Revelation in the fourth century cannon list, which was ratified three centuries later in 692 by the Trullan Synod,. . .

Before the fifth century the Syrian Christian cannon included 3 Corinthians and Tatian's Diatessaron, but excluded the four Gospels, Philemon, and seven general Epistles, and the book of Revelation. Syrian Christians from the fifth century on accepted the Syriac Peshitta version of the Bible which included the four Gospels in place of the Diatessaron and excluded 3 Corinthians, but recognized only twenty two books in all as canonical: the four Gospels, the book of Acts, the fourteen letters of Paul, James, 1 Peter, and 1 John. To this day both the Syrian Orthodox church and the Chaldean Syrian church recognize only these twenty-two books, rejecting 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and the book of Revelation. It is also interesting to note that the Greek Orthodox Church has never included the book of Revelation in its official lectionary. . . .

The Abyssinian Orthodox church has in its canon the twenty-seven books of the modern New Testament, but adds the Synodos and Qalementos [both attributed to Clement of Rome], the Book of the Covenant [which includes a post resurrection discourse of the Savior], and the Ethiopic Didascaleia. To the Old Testament the Abyssinian canon adds the book of Enoch [cited as prophetic by the canonical book of Jude] and the Ascension of Isaiah. . . .

Among Protestants, Martin Luther suggested that the new Testament books were of varying worth and divided them up into three separate ranks. In the prefaces of his early editions of the New Testament, Luther denied that the lowest rank [Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation] belonged among "the true and noblest books of the New Testament" and went so far as to call the Epistle of James "a letter of straw." He complained that Hebrews contradicted Paul by teaching justification by works; and that Jude merely copied from second Peter and from apocryphal books; and that Revelation dealt with material inappropriate for an Apostle, it didn't teach enough about Christ, and its author had too high an opinion of himself [W.G. Kummel, Concordia Theological Monthly, #37 [1966], "The Continuing Significance of Luther's Prefaces to the New Testament" pp. 573-78]. As a direct result of Luther's judgement, some subsequent Lutheran editions of the Bible separated Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation from the rest of the New Testament, and even went so far as to label them "apocryphal" and "non canonical." As Bruce Metzger points out: "Thus we have a threefold division of the New Testament: 'Gospels and Acts', 'Epistles and Holy Apostles' and 'Apocryphal New Testament' - an arrangement that persisted for nearly a century in half a dozen printings". . .

Finally, it should be understood that there is still no single Christian canon or Bible, for Protestants and Catholics disagree on whether the "Deuteroncanonical books" [what Protestants call the Apocrypha] are scripture. At the Council of Trent in 156, Roman Catholics officially adopted a canon of scripture that included the Apocrypha as fully inspired and fully the word of God. Consequently these twelve books are found in modern Catholic editions of the Bible. The collection of books includes Tobit, Judith, the Wisdom of Solomon, Eccesiastics or Ben Siriach, Baruch, the Letter of Jeremiah, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees, additions to Daniel [comprised of prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men, Susanna and the Elders, and Bel and the Dragon].

These books were part of the Greek translation of the Old Testament known as the Septuagint which was used in Egypt as early as the second century BC. The Septuagint was also the version of the Old Testament used by the early Christian church, and so had passed into the Latin Vulgate of the Roman church, and is still the version used by the Greek Orthodox. The conciliar decree De Canonicis Scripturis, issued on April 8 1546, declared that all who did not accept these deuterocanonical books [the Apocrypha] as Christian scripture were anahema [accused]. . . .

On the other hand, most protestants broke with centuries-old tradition of accepting the Septuagint and all its contents, and preferred the version of the Old Testament which had been preserved in Hebrew by the Jews. These medieval copies of the Hebrew Old Testament did not have the Apocrypha in them as the Greek Septuagint translation did, and consequently the books of the Apocrypha are not generally accepted as scripture by Protestants. . . . in the interests of Christian unity Protestants and Catholics have "agreed to disagree" among themselves on the issue of canon [Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christians? pp.51-55; see also Hugh Nibley; Since Cumorah, pp. 32-51].

Many scholars have observed that several other books not included in the King James Bible were routinely quoted by early Christians. These include:
  1. The Testament of Levi [3:1-4 quoted by the Savior in the Sermon on the Mount [Eugene Seaich, Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Texts, p. 48]
  2. The Testament of the 12 Patriachs
  3. The Shepard of Hermes - widely quoted in the church from the Second to Fouth Century AD [Mormonism, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and the Nag Hammadi Texts, p. 48]
  4. 2 Baruch - considered as legitimate Christian scripture by the early church
  5. 4 Ezera - considered as scripture by the early Church
  6. Odes of Solomon - considered as scripture by the early Christians
  7. The Assumption of Moses - quoted in Jude 1:9
  8. Wisdom - quoted in 1 Clement [ca 95 AD] and Barnabas [70-132AD] and by Irenaeus [ca 190AD], [J.N.D.Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp 52-60]
  9. Ecclesiasticus - quoted in Barnabas
  10. Tobit - quoted by Polycarp [ca 136AD]
  11. Didache - quoted by Polycarp [ca 136AD]
  12. Hisotry of Susannah - quoted by Irenaeus
  13. Bel and the Dragon - quoted by Irenaeus

Justin Martyr gave two examples of writings in the Second Century AD that had been removed from Meremiah [Dialogue with Trypho as quoted in Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1:234-35]. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth [168-177AD], complained of falsification of the gospels and his own letters [Joseph Fielding McConkie, Sons and Daughters of God pp. 60-65].

To these we could add other Apocryphal books [such as the Maccabees, Judith ect.] quoted or listed as inspired by Tertullian [ca 200 AD], Hippolytus [ca 200 AD], Clement of Alexandria [ca 200 AD], Origen [ca 240 AD], and Cyprian [246 AD]

Modern scriptures also attest to the fact that large portions of scripture have been lost [1 Nephi 19:10-16; 2 Nephi 3; Jacob 5; 6:1; Words of Mormon 1:1-11; Alma 33:3-17; 34:7; Helaman 8:19-20; 15:11; 3 Nephi 10:16; Ether 1:1-5; 4:1-4; D&C 84:7-13; 107:56-57; Moses 6:5 and others; see also History of the Church, 1:363 and other texts to many to mention. All the foregone omissions attest to the fact that our present Bible does not contain all the words that the Lord revealed to his people in former times. We can only conclude that our modern Bible is incomplete since so many important prophecies, sacred books, and epistles now appear to be missing from our modern Bible text [see Michael T. Griffith, Signs of the True Church of Christ, pp. 86-87] and Peterson and Ricks, Offenders for a Word pp. 117-28 for additional references on the subject].

Thursday, December 28, 2006

How can Latter-day Saints accept Joseph Smith as a Prophet when He Prophecied Falsely?

Critics of Joseph Smith sometimes cite Deuteronomy 18:20-22 and state that God's test for a prophet requires 100 percent accuracy in fulfillment of his prophecies or the prophet is a false prophet. D&C 84:2-5 is occasionally used as an example of what they consider to be false prophecy. It is asserted that this prophecy predicated that the New Jerusalem would be built in Joseph Smith's day. Several factors should be considered in judging this prophecy"

It should be noted that the time of the accomplishment uses the same identical words "this generation" which Jesus used in referring to his Second Coming and "the gathering of his elect" [Matt 24:27-34]. It appears that the word "generation" as used in scripture, may have no set time limit [D&C 5:8, 10; 6:9; and others]. Jesus stated, for example: "an evil and adulterous generation seekth after a sign; there shall be no sign given it" [Matt 12:39]

Similar prophets are found with words like "eternal", "forever", "ever-lasting", "hereafter", "quickly" and others. John Aylor explained: "The word forever used in the Old Testament does not necessarily mean to the end of time but to the end of a period" [John Taylor, Mediation and the Atonement]. Thus, it seems quite possible that D&C 84:2-5 and other similar scriptures are simply being misinterpreted because the Lord's perspective of time is not the same as man's [See also Matt 10:23; 12:39-42; 24:34; 26:64 {hereafter}; Re 22:6-7, 12, 20 {quickly}]

Furthermore, it is clear to Latter-day Saints that promised blessings may be revoked when man does not obey God [Jer 18:8-10 D&C 58:31-33; 130:21]. That the blessing in D&C 84:2-5 was revoked "for a little season" is made clear by the Lord in D&C 105:1-9 and 124:49. This particular promise was made contingent on obedience to the commandment "that they shall not boast themselves of these things... before the world" [D&C 84:73]. In this case, the saints did boast, and the blessing was withdrawn for a time. Some may scoff at this explanation, but God nevertheless frequently grants and revokes blessings based on obedience. The reader might note that the children of Israel were similarly denied blessings as a result of disobedience at Mount Sinai [Ex 32] and in the boarders of Canaan [Num 14]. Other promises, as well be noted shortly, were revoked for thousands of years. Many prophetic teachings and prophecies as contained in our present King James Bible are difficult to understand or appear to be conditional:

  1. Passover feast to be an eternal ordinance [Ex 12:14 and circumcision and eternal covenant [Gen 17:13; Acts 15:1-11].
  2. Jacob prophesied that Judah would not be without a ruler until Shiloh [the Messiah] had come. [Gen 49:10; see also Talmage, Jesus the Christ pp. 54-55]
  3. Children of Israel given "a place of their own, and move no more; neither shall the children of wickedness afflict them any more" [2 Sam7:10]
  4. Isaiah's prophecy of Hezekiah's death [Isa 38:1-5]
  5. Jeremiah's prophecy concerning Zedekiah [Jer 34:4-5; 52:10-11].
  6. prophecy concerning Nineveh [Jonah 3:4, 10]
  7. Jesus prophesied that "the end wold come" after the gospel was "preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations" [Matt 24:14]. Paul later stated that, in that day, the "gospel . . . was preached to every creature which is under heaven" [Col 1:23; see also Mark 16:15 and Matt 28:19]. Many other prophecies of Christ seemed to confirm the nearness of fulfillment to that day but have not yet been fulfilled. [Matt 10:23; 16:28; 24:34; 26:64; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:24-27, 32; see also Heb 9:26; 1 John 2:18; JS-M 1:34-35

Were Abraham, Jacob, Moses, Nathan, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Jonah and Jesus false prophets? If we use Deuteronomy 18:20-22 as an absolute rule and believe the Bible to be inerrant, we might be led to this conclusion. It is clear that the information presented above must be considered in judging prophecies. As Paul said, "We know in part, and we prophecy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away" [ Cor 13:9-10]. The time element and the conditions specified must be clearly understood and we must be patient and exercise faith in the Lord's servants [D&C 21:4-5.] Most importantly, we must rely on the Spirit, not man's understanding, to guide us in all truth [John 16:13].

Duane S. Crowther and other authors have made exhaustive lists of hundreds of modern prophecies which have been fulfilled. Duane Crowther lists 141 prophecies which were made by Joseph Smith and have been fulfilled. [Prophecies of Joseph Smith; see also Kirk Holland Vestail and Arthur Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, Chapter 21; Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth About the God Makers, Appendix C, pp. 387-98. For additional information on prophets and prophecy see Sustaining and Defending the Faith, pp. 69-71; Teachings, pp. 255 and 278; and Answers to Gospel Questions, 4:111-15. ]

What Are Some of the Errors in the Bible?

For centuries Bible scholars have written volumes documenting the errors, omissions and contradictions found in the Bible after the "plain and precious" parts were removed [1 Nephi 13:26-40]; yet today some are still unaware that errors have crept into the modern biblical texts. These errors may have been introduced inadvertently because of imperfect sight, inattentiveness and copyists, human frailties, or they may have been introduced intentionally where contradictions, variations, inconsistencies, or alleged errors were detected during copying, translation, or revision. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, there are still many "fundamentalists" today that insist that "the Bible" [presumably some unspecified Protestant version] is inerrant and infallible.

I will attempt to name some but not all of the errors in the Bible here in this article.




  • Jeremiah's false prophecy concerning Zedekiah - Jer 34:4-5; 52:10-11
  • The three varying accounts of Paul's vision - Acts 9:3-8; 22:6-11; 26:13-18
  • Contradictions regarding marriage, women's rold, and drinking wine - [To be Avoided - Lev 10:8-9; Prov 20:1; 23:29-35; Jer 35-13-14; Hos 3:1; 4:11; Rom 14:21; Eph 5:18; 1 Tim 3:3; Titus 1:7 Allowed Gen 14:18; 27:28; Deut 14:26; Ps 104:15; Prov 9:5; 31:6; Isa 25:6; Luke 5:39; John 2:1-11; 1 Tim 3:8; 5:23
  • God's need to repent - [NO: Num 23:19; 1 Sam 15:29; Ps 110:4; Jer 4:28; Ezek 24:14; Zech 8:14 YES: Gen 6:6-7; Ex 32:14; Deut 32:36; Jud 2:18; 1 Sam 15:11, 35; 2 Sam 24:16; 1 Chron 21:15; Ps 90:13; 106:45; 135:14; Jer 18:8; 26:3, 13, 19; 42:10; Joel 2:13; Amos 7:3, 6; Jonah 3:10]

Hebrew and Greek manuscripts in our possession today contain these same errors and offer little help in explaining the above contradictions. Other errors and contradictions may be added to the above list. Following sampling of some of the more obvious problem scriptures gives an idea of the abundance of errors found in our modern King James Bibles:

  1. Number of Israelites killed by a plague - Num 25:1, 9; 1 Cor 10:8
  2. Sisera's death - Judges 4:21-22; 5:25-27
  3. Jepthah's burnt offering - Judges 11:30-40; see Ex 20:13
  4. Evil spirits from the Lord - 1 Sam 16:14-16, 23; 19:9
  5. Saul's death, a suicide or murder? - 1 Sam 31:4-5; 2 Sam 1:10; 21:12
  6. Number slain of David - 2 Sam 10:18; 1 Chron 19:18
  7. God or Satan provoked David - 2 Sam 24:1; 1 Chron 21:1
  8. Dead arose - 2 Kings 19:35; Isa 37:36
  9. God creates evil - Isa 45:7
  10. Lord makes us err and hardens our hearts - Isa 63:16-17
  11. Differences in the genealogies of Christ - Matt 1:6-16 Luke 3:23-38
  12. The Lord leads us into temptation - Matt 6:13; James 1:13
  13. Mean or men with an unclean spirit - Mat 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-18; Luke 8:26-39
  14. The sign of Jonas [2 or 3 nights] - Matt 12:40; 28:1; Mark 15:42; 16:1-2
  15. Christ baptized followers - John 3:22; 4:2
  16. Blind man or men healed at Jericho - Matt 20:29-34; Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43
  17. Mother or apostles request - Matt 20:20-28; Mark 10:35-45
  18. Death of Judas - Matt 27:5; Acts 1:18
  19. Masturbation - Matt 27:9-10; Zech 11:13
  20. Crucifixion inscriptions - Matt 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 23:38; John 19:19
  21. Christ's last words - Luke 23:46; John 19:30
  22. Angels at the tomb - Matt 28:2; Mark 16:5; Luke 24:4; John 20:12
  23. Mistranslations of Hebrew words: Book - [Gen 5:1; Ex 17:14; ect.] - Scroll or tablet / Brass - [Gen 4:22; Ex 25:3 ect. ] - possibly copper / Oak [Isa 1:29; Ezek 27:6; ect.] - possibly elm / Whale [Gen 1:21; Job 7:12; ect.] - large fish
  24. Mistranslations of Greek words: <Virtue [Mark 5:30; Luke 6:19; 8:46] - Should be power / Parable [John 10:6 - should be allegory / Easter [Acts 12:4] - should be Passover / Charity [1 Cor 13:1-4, 8 ; ect.] - Should be Love

To there can be added errors of grammar, punctuation, and numerous misquotations of Scripture, but these flaws are admittedly more trivial. What is important is that we realize that our modern Bible translations do contain some errors and therefore cannot be read without discernment. The fact that we find most of the above contradictions and errors in all available manuscripts leads us to one of two conclusions: either the originals , as written by inspired writers, contained the same errors, or the copying errors were made in the very earliest manuscripts and continued to be propagated in subsequent copies of copies. Neither of these conclusions is acceptable to those who hold the Bible to be inerrant and infallible. When confronted with these problems, some avoid the issue, stating that these differences are compelling evidence of the historicity of the events and the lac of conclusion on the part of the writers. Although this statement is certainly true, it nevertheless fails to explain the contradictions in these various accounts and demonstrates that either the writers, scribes or translators have introduced errors at some point.

The inconsistencies and errors listed above do not shake the faith of Latter-day Saints for several reasons: first modern scriptures and Joseph Smith's inspired revision of the Bible restore many plain and precious portions of the gospel that were lost [see 1 Nephi 13:24:26]; second, we have the additional witness of modern prophets and apostles to help us; third, we have an assurance that the Holy Ghost will guide us in understanding not only the scriptures but "all truth" [John 14:26; 16:13; Moroni 10:4-5; D&C 121:26]. Many other Christians today have no such assurance because they rely solely on their interpretations of the Bible for all truth. They have also chosen to ignore all of God's word revealed in these later days and have denied the need for a restoration of God's priesthood power through with the gift of the Holy Ghost is given [4th and 5th Articles of Faith]. As Paul taught, no man knoweth the things of God except the Holy Ghost reveal it unto him [1 Cor 2:10-13. Though member of various Catholic and Protestant denominations may gain and understanding of many Gospel truths by the inspiration of the Spirit, they will not be guided to "all truth" without receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost by the laying on the hands from those authorized to bestow it.

Wednesday, December 27, 2006

Do Bible Teachings Contradict Modern Revelation Regarding the Need for the Priesthood?

Detractors of the LDS faith incorrectly assume that every Christian is automatically a member of the priesthood. They cite 1 Peter 2:9, Revelation 1:4-6 and Hebrews 7:21 as proof texts, asserting that all Christians are now priests and that Christ is the one and only high priest forever. Some claim there is no official priesthood in the New Testament. They ask why we would need official priests now since Christ came and shed his own blood as a sacrifice for us. They also claim that there was no further need for a temple since blood sacrifices were done away with after Calvary.

We should first note that the above cited scriptures were not written simply to the general membership of the Church, but to the elect [1 Peter 1:2, 22-23], and especially to those called as priesthood bearers [Heb 3:1; 1 Peter 2:5; Rev 1:4; JST Rev 2:1]

Christ was "Called of God as a high Priest" [Heb 5:10; 6:20] but he was not the only one [Heb5:1]. Despite Protestant claims to the contrary, there are absolutely no scriptures stating that Christ was the last high priest. He was also a priest [Heb 7:15-17], a bishop [1 Peter 2:25], an apostle [Heb 3:1], and a prophet [Matt 21:11; John 4:19, 6:14; 7:40] - positions also held by other men. Paul wrote to the Hebrew saints after the Ascension of Christ into heaven: "the law maketh men high priests which have infirmity" [Heb 7:28]. "For every high priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices [not blood sacrifices]" [Heb 8:3]. John the Apostle also testified that Jesus Christ "hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father [Rev 1:6]

While there are few New Testament references to priests other than Jesus Christ and converted Levite priests [Acts 6:7], we should not assume that this office was abolished. The early church has priests along with bishops and deacons. Origen [ca 240AD] spoke of the church hierarchy in the 2nd century, describing the priest's office as being between that of the deacon and bishop [Jean Danielou, Origen, p 44-45, 49-50]. Eusebius [ca 300AD] clearly distinguished between those holding the priesthood [i.e. bishops, presbyters, or elders, deacons etc] and the lay members both men and women [Eusebius, History of the Church, 6:19, 23, 43, 7:30; 10:3, 4]

Eugene Seaich observers that "documents from the early Church show that the Aaronic Priesthood did not immediately disappear from Christianity. 1 Clement [ca 96AD] divides the priesthood into High Priests, Priests, and Levites. The latter was also called "Deacons" and, according to Jusin's First Apology [ca 150AD], were responsible for passing the bread and wine to those attending service" [Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 59]. Though the title of "priest" was rarely used in the New Testament, so also were simular priesthood titles such as pastor [Eph 4:11], evangelist [Acts 21:8, Eph 4:11, 2 Tim 4:5], presbytery [1 Tim 4:14], and seventy [Luke 10:1, 7]

Perhaps this question is raised because those protestants who admit there was an official priesthood have a problem. They have no claim to authority by succession, since the Catholic Church long ago cut them off. On the other hand, if protestants can claim that the priesthood is legitimately inherent in Christianity, then this justifies their claim to authority. However, if the Protestant line of reasoning is correct, then anyone can start a new church and claim the authority. Unfortunately, this is exactly what has happened today as confusion reigns among the hundreds of Christian churches. This cannot be God's way, for his is a house of order, not of confusion [D&C 132:8].

There was definitely an official, unchangeable [Heb 7:24] and everlasting [Ex 40:15; Num 25:13] priesthood in the early church which was given to those called and ordained [John 15:16, Acts 1:22, 14:23; 15:22-23, 32; Eph 2:20; 4:11-12; 1 Tim 2:7, 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:5]by the laying on of hands [Acts 6:1-6; 13:1-3]. These priesthood holders referred to as elders [Acts 15:2, 4, 6, 22, 23; 16:4; 20:17 etc.] bishops [1 Tim 3:1, 2; Titus 1:7; Peter 2:25], deacons [Phil 1:11; Tim 3:8, 10, 12, 13], the presbytery [1 Tim 4:14], and other titles, accomplished healings [James 5:14-15] and other miracles [Mark 16:17-18] and led the Church [Acts 15:2-6].

In conclusion, one cannot claim priesthood authority out of thin air and without the laying on of hands by someone of authority. The doctrine of "priesthood of all believers" cannot be of God and definitely is not Biblically supportable based on their standard proof texts when applied to the rest of the scriptural support concerning the subject.

Monday, December 25, 2006

Christmas - Somthing We Can All Agree On!

As I spend time with my family this Christmas morning I am thinking of the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ and the wonderful gift he has given us. Coming to Earth and dying for our sins so that we all have the opportunity to accept his gift of salvation. His Virgin Birth a miracle by a pure vessel Mary who was foretold by angles and prophecy. The day of his birth marked by a bright star in the sky that drew the three wise men to a manager in which the Baby Jesus lay. This scene is so often overlooked as the ultimate King of Kings, Lord of Lords lay in the most humble of birth places a manger in which the average person would fail to recognize the significance of event at hand.

This day, Christmas, even though not the actual day of Jesus Christ's birth but celebrated as such where mankind can be humble and charitable toward his fellow man. My hope for this day that we can take Jesus Christ's humble beginning and follow the pattern He has shown us to create peace and harmony and charity for at minimum the next 24 hours. We should remember our Christ and savior daily and remember the birth is the start of a greater journey to save us all.

I wish all who read this a very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. May 2007 bring you peace and harmony.

Wer62

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

God Is A Spirit - Oh Really!

It is widely believed by other Christians that God is a spirit essence without shape for form that fills the immensity of space and is everywhere present. This doctrine, which has very little scriptural support, was devised by councils in the early days of apostasy following the death of the apostles and prophets. Most protestant scholars today refuse to base any doctrine on only one scripture, but this is apparently what most of Christianity has done. One passage of the Gospel of John in the King Games Bible is cited in support of this doctrine. It states "God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit of truth". [John 4:24] The fact is that this verse has been mistranslated. This passage should read: "They hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshipper shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him. For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit of truth". [JST John 4:24-26]

Eugene Seaich has pointed out that:

The original Greek says only that "God is spirit" (pneumae ho theos), i.e. spiritual in nature, the noun being anathrous (without the definite article). As Raymond E. Brown - undoubtedly the world's leading scholarly authority on John's Gospel - explains, "This is not an essential definition of God, but a description of God's dealings with men, it means that God is spirit toward men because he gives the spirit (xiv 16) which begets them anew". [Anchor Bible, John, p. 172] There are in fact two other such descriptions in John's writing, "God is light" [1 John 1:5], and "God is love" [1 John 4:8], though no one has argued that God is a light or a species of love!. In short, one must worship the Father through the Spirit which he has given to the Church [John 14:16], there being no hint of suggestion that he is himself "a spirit" [Eugene Seaich, Ancient Texts and Mormonism, p. 26]

The Greek word "pneuma" which is translated as spirit in John 4:24 also means "life" or "breath". The King James Version of Revelation 13:15, for example renders the word "pneuma" as life. Thus "God is life" or "God is breath of life" are alternative translations of this verse. John 6:63 also uses the Breath word "pneuma": the words that I speak unto you a, they are [pneuma]" Although most version render this as "spirit" the following phrase "and they are life" clarifies the meaning as does the context. [see John 4:10, 14; 6:35, 40, 47-48, 51] Words are not "spirit" in the sense we normally think of spirit, but are a spiritual source of eternal life when believed. In the same way, God is not "a spirit" but a spiritual source of eternal life to those who worship him in spirit and truth. To believe otherwise is to believe the absurd notion that we must in some way leave our bodies to worship him since "they that worship him must in some way leave our bodies to worship him in spirit". [John 4:24]

Some has also cited Alma 22:9-10 as proof that God is a spirit, but as with John 4:24 the context does not justify this meaning. This verses speak of God as the "Great Spirit", which was apparently a title for God among the Lamanites. Aaron, who know that a lesson on the nature of God could come later, was merely using a term for deity that the King of the Lamanites was familiar with. Joseph Smith also used the title "Great Spirit" as a title for God when teaching the American Indians. [History of the Church, 5:480] Both Joseph Smith and Aaron used the same teaching technique used by Paul on Mars Hill [Acts 17:22-28] to teach the gospel to men unfamiliar with the true God. Note that Aaron also teaches, as Paul, that we were created in God's image [Alma 22:12; Acts 17:28-29] and that Christ was God's Son. [Alma 21:7; Acts 17:31]

Although there is a real sense in which God may be said to be a Spirit [Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 319, and Doctrines of the Restoration, p. 31], man must also be considered a spirit in the same sense. [Job 32:8; Eccl. 12:7; 1 Cor 6:17; Philemon 25; D&C 93:33] Spirits are not an immaterial vaporous essence that fills the immensity of space, but personages with form like our tangible bodies. [see 1 Nephi 11:11; Ether 3:16; D&C 77:2; LDS Bible Dictionary p. 776]

Latter-day Saints believe that the real essence of man is his spirit, and although it might be proper to say that man is a spirit, it would be more correct to say man is a soul since the spirit and the body together are "soul of man". [D&C 88:15] Although we often think of the mortal body as the tangible substance and the spirit as the intangible being with in the body, the spirit is substance also. Our spirit bodies are made of a more refined substance that cannot be handled or felt in the physical realm. [D&amp;amp;amp;amp;C 129:1-7; 131:7-8]

Jesus taught the apostles after the resurrection that they could verify that he was both spirit and body "for a spirit hath not flesh and bones" as he had. By touching the wounds in his hands and feet, they confirmed that he was not only the spirit of the crucified Lord but a bodily resurrected being with "flesh and bones". [Luke 24:36-39; John 20:27] We believe as Paul taught that a resurrected being rises a "spiritual body" [1 Cor 15:44; D&C 88:27] having both a spirit and body "restored to their proper and perfect frame". [Alma 40:23] When we realize that Jesus did only that which had seen his Father do [Jon 5:19; Teachings, p. 312], it is reasonable to conclude that the Father also has a glorified body of flesh and bones.

Modern revelation provides a final clear witness that God has a glorified and immortal body in which is housed his spirit. Joseph Smith instructed us that, "The Father has a body of flesh and bones and tangible as man's; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us". [D&C 130:22] This knowledge is called the greatest truth of eternity by Bruce R. McConkie [Doctrines of the Restoration, p. 48] for it confirms that we are truly created in the image of God and are his spirit offspring. [Acts 17:28-29] As such we have the potential to become like him [1 John 3:2] in the eternities and thereby gain eternal life [John 17:3; 1 John 5:20; see also Doctrines of the Restoration, pp. 31, 34

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Some Say Temples Are No Longer Needed - What Are The Facts?

Jacob, the Old Testament prophet, equated the "house of God" to "the gate of heaven". [Gen 28:17] Modern revelation affirms that in a very real sense, the highest kingdom of heaven can only be obtained through the ordinances of the temple. [D & C 131:1-2] Although most Christians today recognize the importance of the temple to ancient Israel, they seem to ignore references to temple worship in the New Testament church. They reason that temples were only for blood sacrifices and that when Christ became the final sacrificial "Lamb of God" , blood sacrifices and the need for temples were "done away". [see 2 Cor. 3:14; Heb 9:1-28; 10:1-20]

Those who hold that temples are no longer required ignore the biblical teachings that the Lord will return suddenly at the last day "to his temple" [Mal 3:1-2] and that the anti-Christ will reveal himself "in the temple of God". [2 Thes 2:4] We are also told by John the Revelator that those who "wash their robes and make them white in the blood of the Lamb" will serve God "day and night in his temple". [Rev 7:14-15] We might ask them who will build this temple and why will it be used "day and night" if the work is no longer needed?

We should also note that Christ and his disciples often taught and worshiped in the temple. Christ, according to all four gospels, "taught daily in the temple" [Matt 26:55; Mar 14:49; Luke 2:46; 19:47; 21:37-38; John 7:28; 8:20; 18:20] and would not allow men to defile it. [Matt 21:12-15; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17] There he taught his gospel [Luke 20:1] and healed the blind and the lame. [Matt 21:12-15; Mark 11:15-18; Luke 19:45-46; John 2:14-17] After the resurrection, we find the disciples "continuing daily in the temple" [Acts 2:46] "praising and blessing God". [Luke 24:53] We also find the apostles teaching and healing at the temple as Christ had done. [Acts 3:1-26] Significantly, Paul was praying in the temple and was there visited by the Lord in his glory. [Acts 22:17-18] Later in his first epistle to the Corinthians, Paul asks, "Do ye not know that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? [1 Cor 9:13] How can we live of the things of the temple if there is no temple? If we trust our Bibles, the temple remained the center of Christian worship even after Christ's death. [NOTE: for additional information on early Christian temple rites see Eugene Seaich, Ancient Texts and Mormonism, pp 56-58 and Darrick Evenson, The Gainsayers pp. 79-92]]

The importance of temples and temple work will increase as we enter the millennial period of the earth's history. Bruce R. McConkie has stated:

"Salvation cannot be gained except thought baptism of water and of the Spirit, nor can exaltation be achieved except through temple endowments and the sealing of families together for eternity. These saving and exalting ordinances are performed vicariously in the temples for the worthy dead who did not have the opportunity to receive them in this life. We are commanded to go to with our might, collect all the accurate genealogical data we can, and perform these saving and exalting ordinances for our worthy ancestors. Obviously, due to the frailties, incapacities, and errors of mortal men, and because the records of the past ages are often scanty and inaccurate, this great work cannot be completed for every worthy soul without assistance from on high. The millennial era is the time, primarily, when this assistance will be given by resurrected beings,. Genealogical records unknown to us will then become available. Errors committed by us in sealings or other ordinances will be rectified and all things will be arranged in proper order. Temple work will be the great work of the millennium". [Mormon Doctrine, pp 500-01; see also Doctrines of Salvation, 2:251-52]

After the millennium there will come a day when temples will no longer be required, [Rev 21:22] but that day will not come until the end of the earth [Rev21:1] when God will dwell with his people. [Rev 21:3] Until that day the Lord's people have been commanded to build houses to his holy name [D & C 124:39] that we, therein, might receive his ordinances and the revelation pertaining to this dispensation. [D & C 124:40-41]

Sunday, October 08, 2006

Did False Spirits In the First Vision Approach Joseph Smith?

Detractors of the LDS faith have always attacked the first vision of Joseph Smith. One such question asked is "How can Latter-day Saints accept Joseph Smith as a prophet when he received the Book of Mormon from an unknown and possibly false spirit?

2 Corinthians 11:13-15 states: "For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works." Some have asked if Satan can appear as an angel of light, couldn't hehave cecieved Joseph Smith by claiming to be Moroni or any of the other messengers who appeared to him?

This is cerainly a possibility that should be considered seriously, since the Book of Mormon describes two instances where this occurred. [2 Nephi 9:9; Alma 30:53] Joseph Smith also briefly described several incidents of this nature associated with the restoration. [D&C 128:20; Teachings p. 214] Nevertheless, it appears that Joseph Smith was well aware of this tactic and taught the Saints how to recognize this ruse. [Teachings pp. 202, 204, 214, 227; See also Bruce R McConkie's Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, vol 2, pp 440-41]

The Bible also contains a test to enable us to judge, or as John says to "try spirits whether they are of God." [1 John 4:1-3] If Moroni or any of the other messengers who appeared to Joseph Smith failed this test we would know he was a minister of Satan.

John states: "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God: And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God. Joseph Smith likewise taught, If I profess to be a witness or teacher, and have not the spirit of prophecy, which is the testimony of Jesus, I must be a false witness....any man who says he is a teacher or preacher of righteousness and denies the spirit of prophecy, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; and by this key false teachers and impostors may be detected. [Teachings p. 269]

Moroni not only confirmed that Jesus Christ was "come in the flesh," but quoted Old and New Testament scriptures which were fulfilled with his coming. [JS-H 1:40] Moroni also stated that his purpose was to reveal a book "giving an account of the former inhabitants of this continent" and containing the "everlasting Gospel...as delivered by the Savior" [JS-H 1:34] following his mortal ministry. That stated purpose of the Book of Mormon is in fact to convince both "Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ." As such, it is subtittled "Another Testament of Jesus Christ." We believe it to be a second witness, after the Bible, of Jesus Christ's devine mission. If Moroni were Satan or one of Satan's ministers acting as an instrument of evil, he surely would not have done so much to convince mankind to believe in Christ - it goes counter to Satans's purpose. [Matt 12:25]

The Book of Mormon was written to bring us to Christ as was staed in 2 Nephi 33:10-11: "and now, my beloved brethren, and also Jew, and ye ends of the earth, hearken unto these words and believe in Christ; and if ye believe not in these words believe in Christ. And if ye shall believe in Christ ye will believe in these words, for they are the words of Christ, and he hath given them unto me; and they teach all men that they should do good. And if they are not the words of Christ, judge ye - for Christ will show unto you with power and great glory, that they are his words, as the last day; and you and I sahll stand face to face before his bar; and ye shall know that I ave been commanded of him to write these things, notwithstanding my weakness"

The Book of Mormon contains an account of Christ's visit to those upon the continent wherein he allows them to "feel the prints of the nails" in his flesh [3 Nephi 11:14] that they might understand that he died for them also. Thus Moroni and the book which he brought both testify that Jesus Christ is the Messiah and was come in the flesh "manifesting himself unto all nations." [Book of Mormon title page; 1 Nephi 104-11; 11:18-21, 27-33; 15:13; Mosiah 7:27;
15:1-2; Ether 3:6, 9, 16-17; Moroni 9:25]

None of the messengers which appeared to Joseph Smith ever denied that Jesus Christ was the Messiah come in the flesh [D & C 13:1; 18:11-12, 19:16; 20:1; 110:4]; to the contrary, they all testified of him and his divinity. 2 Corinthians 11:15 contains a final key to detection of false messengers. It states that their "end shall be according to their works" If their works be evil or unrighteous we will know they are not from God. "By their fruits ye shall know them" [Matt 7:20]
LDS Stake Growth 1830-2004

Can anyone really deny the growth of the LDS Church? One just needs to look at the last 25 years to understand the work has increased and the numbers are rising.

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Foundations Don't Get Laid Twice or Do They?

Some Protestants believe that the foundation of the church spoken of in Ephesians 2:20 was meant to be laid only once and was not intended to last any longer than the original apostles. One detractor of the LDS faith asked, How many foundations can a house have?" The answer to this is clear to those who truely understand the extent to which the apostasy destroyed the original Church.

Just as building foundations are not removed when construction of a building is completed, Christ's apostles and prophets were not meant to be removed when the church was established, but were meant to remain, as were the other offices mentioned in Ephesians 4:11. There are at least 15 and passibly as many as 22 apostles named in the New Testament, and no fewer than three prophets are named in the book of Acts. Consider the following references:

Apostles

1-12 Original 12 apostles - Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16
13 Mathias - Acts 1:26
14 Paul - Acts 13:2; 14:14; Rom 1:1
15 Barnabas - Acts 13:2; 14:14
16 Andronicus - Rom 16:7
17 Junia - Rom 16:7
18 Apollos - 1 Cor 4:6-9
19 James (brother of Jesus) - Gal 1:19
20 Silvanus - 1 Thes 1:1; 2:4-6
21 Timotheus - 1 Thes 1:1; 2:4-6
22 Jesus - Heb 3:1

Prophets

1 Agabus - Actions 11:27-28; 21:10
2 Judas - Acts 15:22, 32
3 Silas - Acts 15:22, 32
-- Others Acts 11:27; 13:1; 21:9; Rev 11:3-10

We should ask why Mathias was chosen to replace Judas if that foundation were not meant to remain? Why also were Paul and Barnabas first mentioned as apostles follwing the death of James the brother of John as the imprisonment of Peter [Acts 12:2-3; 13:1-3; 14:14]? Why did the early church accept and refer to so many post resurrection prophets by name?

If prophets existed throughout the Bible, why do we not need them now? Amos 3:7 indicates that God will do nothing save he reveal his will to his prophets. Also, 1 Corinthians 12:27-29, 14:29-33 and 37-39 indicate that prophets and the gift of prophecy were part of the original church. Their principle duty was to prevent error and confusion amoung the saints. Where does the Bible indicate that they were not meant to continue? A careful reading of Ephesians 4:11-14 indicates not only that prophets and apostles were meant to remain to maintain a "unity of the faith" and a "knowledge of the Son of God," but also that without them men would be "tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine" [verse 14]. This is exactly the condition of "mainstream Christianity today!

In Ephesians 3:3-5, Paul makes it clear that in that day, knowledge was "revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit" [see also Acts 1:2; 2:18]. It should also be noted that a careful reading of Luke chapter 11 reveals that Christ taught that slaying the apostles and prophets woudl cause the "key of knowledge" to be "taken away" [verses 49 - 52]. Based on these verses, it seems safe to assume that any church not claiming to have these officers also cannot claim any unique understanding of God's truth or be his Church.

Hegesippus, a historian of the period immediately following apostolic times is quoted by Eusebius in his Ecceesastical History as saying:

The Church continued until then as a pure and uncorrupt virgin; which if there were any at all taht attempted to pervert the sound doctrine of the saving gospel, they were yet stullking in the dark retreats; but when the sacred choir of apostels became extinct, and generations of those that had been priveledged to hear their inspired wisdom had passed away, then also the combination of impios error arose by fraud and delusions of false teachers. These also, as there were none of the apostles left, henceforth attempted without shame to preach their false doctrine against the gospel of truth. Such is the statement of Hegesippus [Eusebius, Ecclsiastical History, Book III, chapter 32]
Palsms 11:3 asks: "If the foundation be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" The answer to this question is found in Acts 3:19-21: "Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord: And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you: Whom the heven must recieve until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began" [see also Acts 1:6-7]

The time refreshing has come and the restitution of all things has begun in preparation for the Second Coming of Jesus Christ. That restoration included the preisthood power and authority held by ancient apostles and prophets and making it possible the calling of modern apostles and prophets in these latter days. [D & C 1:30]

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Ye Are Gods - Dispelling the Myth

Detractors of the LDS faith often cite Psalms 82:6 and John 10:34-35 and attempt to rationalize these teachings. Typical of this is the "ye are gods" passage found in Psalms 82:6 and cited by Jesus Christ in John 10:34-35. The usual rationalized explanation is that Psalms 82 refers to Israelite judge who by virtue of their position represent God and are therefore referred to as gods in a figurative sense. Christ's reference to this scripture. by their line of reasoning, should be understood to man that if God called wicked judges "gods", how much more appropriate for Jesus to be called God or Son of God. An alternate interpretation explains the use of the term "gods" as an ironic (some even say sarcastic) figure of speech. They point to the statement , "but ye shall die like men" in support of this view.

Although the above explanation seems superficially plausible, they seem to ignore the context of the full Psalm. Psalms 82:1 states:, for example: "God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods". (note the similarity to Abr 3:22-23) where God stood among the pre-existent spirits). The interpretation that this passage is speaking of earthly men in contradicted by several facts. First in Comparison to God, it is difficult to see how wicked judges could be considered "mighty". It is also hard to understand at what point God has stood among them to judge. Verse 6 also contradicts the belief that wicked judges are the subject of the discussion. It states: "all of your are children of the most high". Protestant scholars agree this would not be in keeping with the Old Testament use of the term "children of God", which they understood they refer to the righeous [Deut 14:1-2]. Last, irony seems to be totally absent in both of these verse and in Christ's latter use of this passage. Why would Christ use an ironic remark to establish that he was the Son of God when he was being accused of blasphemy? This would only have given those ready to kill him [John 10:39] additional reason to condemn him.

As further proof that the doctrine of deification was originally an accepted biblical teaching, consider the following statements by orthodox Christian saints as quoted by Stephen E. Robinson:

In the second century Saint Irenaeus, the most important Christian theologian of
his time, said

If the word became a man it was so men may become gods
[Against Heresies, book 5, preface]

Indeed, Saint Irenaeus had more than this to say on the subject of deification: Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of your are sons of the Most High". . . For it was necessary at the first that nature be exhibited, then all that was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality . . . "But man receives progression and increase towards God. For as God is always the same, so also man when found in God, shall always progress towards God".

Also in the second century , Saint Clement of Alexandria wrote, "Yea, I way the Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god." [Exhortation to the Greeks, (1)] . . . Clement also said that "if one knows himself, he will know God, and knowing God will become like God . . . His is beauty and true beauty , for it is God, and that man becomes like god, since God wills it. So Heraclitus as right when he said "Men are gods, and gods are men [The Instructor, 3:1; see also Clement, Stromateis, p23]

I could go on with Second Century Justin Martyr or Fourth Century Saint Athanasius and a number of other Early Fathers and modern orthodox scholars but I think you get the point. Although the summary of comments by the first Fathers and other respected Christians is admittedly incomplete, it nevertheless shows that the doctrine of deification was accepted and taught since the very beginning of the Church. The fact that theologians and saints from Justin Martyr to C.S. Lewis (not quoted in this article) in the Twentieth Century considered it an "orthodox" doctrine, makes it somewhat ironic that those who now call themselves "orthodox" Christians have labeled this doctrine as heretical.

For Further Quotes see Darrick Evenson, The Gainsayers, pp 49-57

Monday, September 04, 2006

Book of Mormon Importance


Something for Latter-day Saints to remember.

Friday, September 01, 2006

Does God Have A Physical Body As Described In The First Vision?

Most modern scholars admit that the biblical conception of God presuppose his human form, or more correctly stated, man’s divine form. Eugene Search has observed:

In the Old Testament, the Israelites likewise “conceived even with Jahweh himself as having human form”. [Gerhard Von Rad, Theology of the Old Testament, 1:145]. For This reason, “a doctrine of God as spirit in the philosophical sense will be sought in vain in the pages of the Old Testament’s humanizing of deity leads us to see . . . that in fact it is not the spiritual nature of God which is the foundation of the Old Testament faith. It is his personhood – a personhood which is fully alive, and a life which is fully personal [Walter Eichrodt, Theology of the Old Testament, Philadelphia, 1961 1:212]

But even in the Old Testament it would be incorrect to say that God has a human form, “for according to the ideas of Jahwism, it cannot be said that Israel regarded God anthropomorphically but the reverse, that she considered man as the theomorphic” In other words, man was created in God’s image [Gen 1:26] not the other way around.

The reason is obvious; “God took the pattern for this, his last work of creation, from the heavenly world above. In no other work of creation is everything referred so very immediately to God himself.” [Ibid] Man, in short, possesses the same divine image that Christ possessed, for which reason of the author of Hebrews could say, “Both he that sanctifieth and they are that are sanctified are of one origin. [ex henos, masc., 2:11; see Kasemann, op, cit. p.90] [Ancient Texts and Mormonism, pp 26-27]

Those who believe God is an “immaterial being” have a difficult time explaining in what way we, as men are made in the “similitude of God” the Father [James 3:9] if it is not in a physical sense. Man’s basic nature, as scripture says, is sinful [1 John 1:8; Mosiah 3:19] and nothing like God’s [Heb 4:15]. Our thoughts are not his thoughts and our ways are not his ways [Isa 55:8-9]. Notwithstanding, Genesis teaches clearly that man was created in both the image and likeness of God [Gen 1:26-27]. A few chapters later, we are told that Adam’s son Seth, resembled Adam in like manner, using the identical Hebrew words translated in the King James Version as: “in his own likeness” and “after his own image” [Gen 5:3]. Thus it is clear that we must resemble God and his Son just as mortal sons physically resemble their fathers. Paul applied the same literal meaning to these words by explaining that as man “is the image and glory of God” so “woman is the glory of man” [1 Cor 11:7]

The Old Testament describes Jacob's encounters with God, stating that he did see "God face to face" [Gen 32:30] and taht God spoke to Moses "face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend" [Ex 33:11]. We are also told that "Enoch walked with God" [Gen 5:22-24]. How could this possibly be, unless God had a bodily shape that of a man?

The New Testament also confirms that Christ is in the "image of God" [2 Cor. 4:4; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3] and the "form of God" [Phil 2:6]. If further telss us that in the resurrection our vile bodies will be made like Christ's "glorious body" [Phil 3:21] so that when he returns, "we shall be like him" [1 John 3:2] and"see his face" [Rev 22:4]. If we were created in the similitude of both God and Christ, and Christ is in image and form like his Father, then God the Father and his Son must have corporaeal bodies like ourselves.

The Church of England teaches that "there is but one living and true God, everlasting , without body, parts, or passions; of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness" [Book of Common Prayer, Articles of Religion, Article 1 - Of Faith in the Holy Trinity p.685]. This immarterial God is at variance with scripture since the original God of the Bible is described as having body parts, and passions:

1. Body - Ex 21:10-11; 33:23; Num 12:5; Jud 13:22; Kings 11:9; Isa 6:5; Matt 5:8; John 5:37; Acts 7:55-56; and other scriptures cited above.

2. Parts - Gen 8:21; Ex 24:10-11; 31:18; 22:23; Num 12:8; Deut 9:10; 34:10; Job 19:25 ; Ps94:7-11; Matt 4:4; Rev 19:12; 22:4

3. Passions - Ex 20:5-6; 34:6-7, 14; Deut 4:24. 31; 6:15; 7:8-9; 10:15, 18; Josh 24:19; Jud 2:14; 3:8; Kings 22:53; 2 Kings 13:3; Neh 9:17; Ps 6:16; 116:5; Isa 30:27; Jer 4:8; 7:19-20; 44:4-6; Hosea 11:1; 9:17; Zech 8:17; John 16:27; Rom 1:18; James 5:11; 1 John 16:27; Rom 1:18; James 5:11; 1 John 3:1; Rev 15:1

Furthermore it is inacurrate to claim that members of the LDS Church belive in a God with a physical body like man's. James E. Talmage as affirmed that God, unlike man is "of infinite power; his mind of unlimited capacity; his powers of tranferring Himself from place to place are infinite; plainly, however, His person cannot be in more han one place at a time. Admitting the personality of God, we are compelled to accept the fact of his mertiality; indeed, an immertial being under which meaningless name some have sought to designate the condition of God, cannot exist, for the very expression is a contradiction in terms" [James E. Talmage, Articles of Faith, p. 43].

Bruce R. McConkie, after reviewing serveral personal apperances of the resurrrected Christ [Luke 24:18-25, 37-43; John 20:15-17, 25-27; 21:5-7; Acts 1:11 and others ] pionted out:
From this brief review we learn serveral important things; we know that resurrected beings, containing their glory within themselves, can walk as mortals do on earth; they can converse and reason and teach as they once did in mortality; they can both withhold and manifest their true identities; they can pass with corporeal bodies through solid walls; they have bodies of flesh and bones which can be felt and handled; that if need be (and at special times) they can retain the scars and wonunds of the flesh; they can eat and digest food; that they can vanish frommoratl eyes and transport themselves by means unknown to us. [Doctrines of the Restoration, p 123-124]
Christ was God even before the creation of the world [John 1:1-3, 14; 1 Cor 10:1-4; Heb 1:1-3; Isa 9:6] and he followed in the footsteps of the Father [John 5:19-20; Phil 2:5-6] to become exalted. [Phil 2:9-11; Rev 3:21] If we further realize that Jesus Christ, being a God, now has a body of flesh and bones in apperance as man's [Luke 24:15-16, 30-31. 36-39, John 20:27] and yet can pass through walls [John 20:19] and influence and mankind through his power [Phil 1:19; Moroni 7:16], it should not be difficult to realize that God the Father likewise is an exalted Man of Holiness. [Moses 6:57; see also John 3:13] Christ has being like him [Rom 8:29; 2 Cor 4:4; Phil 2:6; Col 1:15; Heb 1:3] in both appearance and physical attributes. [John 14:9; D&C 130:22] Aas such Christ chose in mortality to call himself the "Son of man which is in heaven" [John 3:13] or simply "Son of man" [See LDS Topical Guide, p 256]

Two Scriptures are generally cited by critics to show that God is not a man. Numbers 23:19 informs us that "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent". Never-the-less Jesus called himself Son of man [Matt 8:20] and yet was himself God. [John 1:1-3; Heb 1:8-9] First Samuel 15:29 informs us: And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man, that should repent". [note that 1 Sam 15:11 contradicts this verse in part.] God and Jesus Christ are perfect and, as such, are not as man that they will lie or need to repent. The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus Christ is the God of the Old Testament [John 1:1-3,14 ect] and that Jesus Christ was a man even after his resurrection. [1 Tim 2:5; 1 Cor 15:21-22, 47; Phil 2:8] Thus, the above-mentioned scriptures are saying that God is not weak like "corruptible man" [Rom 1:23] and therefore not susceptible to sin. [Matt 5:48; Peter 2:22]

Though much of Christdom is as Thomas and will not believe that God has a glorified and exalted body of flesh and bone [D&C 130:22] unless they are shown, we may be sure of this fact. Blessed are they that have not see, and yet have believed, for they truly know God and his Son [John 17:3; Eph 4:13; see also Teachings, p 181]

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

Was God Once A Man?


We believe, as was taught by Joseph Smith, that "God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sites enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. If the viel were rent today, and the great God who hold this world in its orbit, and who upholds all the worlds and all things by his power, was to make himself visible, I say, if you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image, and likeness of God, and recieved the instructions from and conversed with Him, as one man talks and ommunes with another. [Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith p. 345]

D&C 130:1 states: "When the Savior shall appear we shall see him as he is. We shall see that he is a man like ourselves.

It is for this reason that Jesus Christ is called both "Son of God" [Mark 1:1; 3:11] and Son of Man [Mark 2:10, 28]. John makes it clear that both titles are synonymous when he calls Jesus Christ "Son of man which is in heaven" [John 3:13]. "Man of Holiness" was an ancient title given to God the Father; thus Christ was literally the "Son of Man of Hiliness" [Moses 6:57; see also Joseph Fielding Smith, Answers to Gospel Questions 1:10-11; Jesus the Christ, pp 142-144]

In John 5:19-20 Jesus declares: "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever [the Father] doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. For the Father loveth the Son and sheweth him all things that himself doeth" What did Jesus do? He was born of a woman, lived a sinless life, and afte atoning for our sins was glorified with a resurrected doby of "flesh and bones" [Luke 24:36-39]. If Christ followed the example of his Father, then it is clear that God the Father was once man just as Christ and both of them are now glorified and exalted beings.

As the prophet Joseph Smith taught:
It is the first principal of hte Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man ike us; yea that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did. [Teachings pp 345-46]

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Are Mormon's Polytheists

Those outside the LDS Church contend that the LDS belief that there are three Gods in the Godhead makes us polythiests. Though dictionaries "basing defintions on term defintions devised by many years ago in theological seminaries", generally define polytheism as a belief in the extistence of more than one god. As a LDS Member I refuse to accept this description of our religious beliefs based on the term meaning we worship. The reason is that the commonly accepted meaning that most people give this term differers radically from its technical defintion. The commonly accepted meaning of polytheism is typically associated with multiplicity of deities as worshiped by primitive pagan religions. This system of gods is totally foreign to the LDS beliefs and is considered by the LDS Church members to be an apostate perversion of the original truths revealed to Old Testament prophets beginning with Adam.

To worship is to give profound reverence, respect and love to a Devine Being; to give praise and honor; to recognize the omnipotence and the divine qualities of deity; to be cognizant of divine grace, love and concern; and to be desireous of maintaining a closeness, a pesonal relationship and an ongoing communication. Latter-day Saints worship God the Father; Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of God the Father and the Holy Ghost. They regard each of the three as possessing the divine attributes of Godhood. They believe each of the three plays a significant role in directing the affairs of mankind here on earth and that their influence upon mankind will be eternal in nature, continuein in the exalted realms of heaven.

The major reponsibilty for the central role in creation of the earth delegated by the Father to Jesus Christ. [Heb. 1:2; Col 1:16] Jesus also governs the affairs of mankind as the Old Testament Jehovah, then came to earth in the meridian of time in the role of Savior and Redeemer. He will return in a glorious Second Coming and rule as King of Kings and Lord of Lords [Rev 19:12] He will judge all mankind. [John 5:22-29] When he has completed and perfected his work, he will present it to the Father, then be crowned with glory and given power to reign forever [D & C 76:106-108] as the Father's appointed "heir of all things" [Heb 1:2]

Yet Christ has directed us to acknowledge God the Father's overall authority over man, since he is the literal Father of our spirits [Heb 12:9; Matt 5:48; Acts 17:29] Though we recognize Jesus' role as assigned administrator of the earths's affaris, our savior himself instructed us to address our prayers to the Father [Matt 6:9] and to always pray to the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. [3 Nephi 18:19-24] . Thus, our worship of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is primarily channeled to the Father.

Bible Scripture speaks of a "God of gods and Lord of lords" [Deut 10:17 , (see also) Ex. 15:11; 18:11; Ps 97:9; 135:5; 136:2 138:1; Dan 11:36] and Paul taught that while there were many gods, mortals of this earth should worship only God the Father [1 Cor 8:5-6; Col 3:17] The LDS do in fact worship God the Father in the name of Christ as is taught in both ancient and modern scripture [Matt 6:9; John 15:16; 2 Nephi 32:9; Jacob 4:5; 3 Nephi 18:19; Moroni 10:4; D&C 18:40; 20:19, 29, Moses 1:17]

The LDS also literally accept the many scriptural passages which tell us that man, as spirit offspring of God the Fatehr, may eventually be granted the powers of Godhood [Rom 8:16-17; Gal 4:6-7; Titu 3:7; Heb 1:14; 11:7; James 2:5; Matt 5:48; D&C 76:50-60; 132:19-20]. However while recognizing that man has the God-given potiential to attain personal exaltation and godhood, we worship only God since we recognize that their attaining of this exalted station by men and women is a future event.

The LDS recognize that there is a oneness of unity and purpose of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost [John 17:20-23]. Evangelicals, Non Denominationalists and some other Protestant Trinity beliving sects believe that the Father Son and the Holy Ghost in some manner which they are unable to "comprehend" or satifactorily define one God, and hence they call themselves monothiestic. Yet they attempt to play word games, asserting that the LDS are polythiestic in their worship of those same three beings. It is hypocritical to call Protestants monothiests, and LDS polythiests since we worship the "Godhead" in the same manner they worship the trinity.

Monday, August 21, 2006

Trinity Doctrine Exposed! (A Brief Overview)

The first vision of Joseph Smith represents to Latter-daySaints the beginning of the revelation of God to man in the final dispensation. Knowledge pertaining to the nature of God - his character, personality, divine attributes, powers, and purposes - have been known to latter-day prophets, and some of the knowledge obviously stands in contrast to what many in the Christian world would believe about God and about man's relationship to Deity.

1: The Trinity - An LDS Belief? (Godhead):

The answer to this question depends entirely on the inquirer's definition of "trinity". Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines the word trinity as "the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The Random House College Dictionary adds a second alternative to this definition which allows also "the threefold personality of one Divine Being". Although Webster's definition would be considered a valid LDS description of the Godhead, the second Random House alternative would be considered by Latter-day Saints to be an apostate view.

Today, some people assert that a belief in a mysterious unknowable Trinitarian god is essential to a claim of Christianity even though this requirement is not biblical. At times they use Colossians 2:9 as a proof text to support their Trinitarian concept: "in him[Christ] dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Though this scripture could appear to vindicate the belief in the trinity, the Greek text does not justify this interpretation. The Greek word translated as Godhead in this verse is "theotes." This word actually means "divinity" and is translated as such in many modern Bible translations. Accurately translated, this verse should read "in Christ the fullness of divinity dwells in bodily form" {See New International Version}. Therefore, the qualities of Godhead are manifest to us in Christ but Christ is not God the Father.

It is important to note the word "trinity" does not appear anywhere in the King James Version nor any other reputable translation of the Bible. The present Trinitarian concept cannot be derived from an impartial reading of the Bible. Justification of this doctrine using citations of biblical verses is weak and inconclusive at best. The term Godhead, on the other hand, is an accepted biblical term {Acts 17:29; Rom1:20; Col. 2:9} and the preferred title in the LDS Church.{1} References to the Godhead as the trinity are found in LDS Church literature {2} but such usage clearly denotes a three-person Godhead and not a one-being concept.The latter concept of the trinity, now held by much of "mainstream Christianity", seems to have originated under the influence of the Greek and other oriental philosophies during the period of apostasy following the death of the apostles. {3} A study of Christianity prior to 325AD reveals that the LDS interpretation of the Godhead was then the prevailing belief. Church fathers such as Ignatius, Justin Martyr, Origen, Athanasius, and others argued that the Godhead consisted of separate Beings. {4} The first person to use the term trinity appears to have been Tertullian in about 200AD. He used the term to refer to ideas which mentioned three and one.

Over a century later, in 325AD, the Roman Emperor Constantine convened a delegation composed of about one-sixth of the bishops from throughout the Roman Empire. The stated purpose of the Council of Nicea as it was called, was to achieve unity among the factions that existed then. Three major groups with differing views regarding God's nature at length became two factions. The eastern (Arian) Christian view favored a three-God concept while the western (Roman) view favored one supreme God to whom all others were subordinated. Under extreme intimidation by the emperor, the Arian group was compelled to yield to the Roman view. Araus and the bishops and priests who opposed the Nicean Creed and the "one substance" terminology adopted by the council were exiled. Constantine, in order to ensure future unity, also commanded that the writings of these men be burned. {5}

The Nicean Creed stated that there was "one God and one Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God" who was "one substance with the Father." The Athanasian creed, which was an outgrowth of the Nicean Creed, typifies the modern "orthodox" concept of the trinity. It speaks of an "incomprehensible" God which is completely foreign to Christ's teachings. Jesus taught that "this life eternal that 'we' might . . . know the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom God had sent"{John 17:3; see also Jeremiah 31:34; John 8:19; 14:7-9, Hebrews 8:10-11, 1 John 2:3-4, and 1 John 3:1-2, 6; 5:20}

Thus, the accepted Trinitarian concept of deity is the result of a compromise achieved without the benefit of apostles, prophets, or revelation and arrived at only when extreme pressure was exerted by a then pagan emperor. The true concept of God is not that of an "unknown" or unknowable God {Acts 17:23} but one whose offspring we are {Acts 17:28-29} and in whose image we were created {Gen 1:26-27}. Our Heavenly Father loves us and wants us to know him and become like him {Matt 5:48; John 3:1-2}

Conclusion - The trinity that "mainstream Christianity" follows today of the three in one concept is not of God and never was. It doesn't follow scriptural references in the Bible and was not brought forth through apostles or prophets and therefore is doctrines of men. The LDS get hammered with accusations of following the doctrines of men but in reality those that judge do not look in their own scriptures to find out if the doctrine preached is actually truth.

---------------------------------------
Footnotes:
{1} History of the Church, 6:473; Lectures on Faith, Lecture 5; pp 58-59
{2} Articles of Faith, pp. 39-41; Journal of Discourses, 6:95; History of the Church, vol1, Intro., pp 80-81
{3} History of the Churh, vol 1, Intro. pp 82-87
{4} see J.D.N Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 93, 96, 129, 233
{5} James K. and Rose Seastrand, Journey to Eternal Life and istratios Along the Way, p 132; History of the Church vol 1, Intro., pp 79-90