Is Lucifer the Brother of Jesus?

The above statement is often used by anti-Mormon detractors in an effort to make the LDS Church appear to be a non-Christian sect or cult. But it serves to highlight a significant difference between Bible doctrine and the views of "orthodox Christians." The Bible clearly indicates that God the Father is the father of the spirits of all mankind, and that both Jesus and Lucifer are also among his sons. "Orthodox Christians" do not accept this Biblical doctrine.

In contrast, Lauer-day Saints believe Jesus, Lucifer and all mankind have a common Heavenly Father. The Bible clearly teaches that all men and women who have ever lived in heaven and on earth are the spirit offspring of our eternal Heavenly Father. Paul taught, "For we are also his offspring. Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man's device" (Acts 17:28,29).

We see in Luke 3:38 that Adam is a son of God. It is only logical that we, who are descended from him, are members of the same family. The author of Hebrews affirms the brotherhood of all men by stating that we are to be "in subjection unto the Father of Spirits" (Heb. 12:9, see Num. 16:22). The book of I John gives account of our relationship to the Father: "Beloved, now are we the sons of God" (1 John 3:2). Paul speaks of "one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:6).

We learn from the book of Job that "there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan came also among them" (Job 1:6). Job makes it clear that as one of the Sons of God, Satan was recognized by the Lord in their presence (Job 1:7- 12,2:1-6). He fell from his heavenly abode, (Luke 10:18, Rev. 12:7-9, Isa. 14:12-14), but that does not negate that he was once a literal "spirit" offspring or child of God. These scriptures clearly show that all of us are offspring of God, our Heavenly Father--including those children who rebelled and followed Satan.

The critic will point to Colossians 1:16 as a prooftext that Jesus is the creator of all things in Heaven and earth and therefore cannot be Lucifer's brother. Such an erroneous interpretation is in sharp contradiction to the passages cited above and others on the subject. The scriptures are clear as to Jesus' creative role and his obedience to his Father's will, but Paul's point in Colossians is not to assert that God the Father did not have spirit children, but rather to emphasize the preeminence of Jesus as he did the will of the Father (v. 18).

That Jesus had a brother named Lucifer is not a new idea to Christians. Catholic writer Giovanni Papini quotes Lactantius, a Third Century Christian writer, from his apologetic work, Divinac Institutines 11.9:

Before creating the world, God produced a spirit like himself replete with the virtues of the Father. Later He made another, in whom the mark of divine origin was erased, because this one was besmirched by the poison of jealousy and turned therefore from good to evil. He was jealous of his older brother who, remaining united with the Father, insured his affection unto himself. This being who from good became bad is called devil by the Greeks.

Papini concludes that, "According to Lactantius, Lucifer would have been nothing less than the brother of the logos, of the word, ie. of the second person of the trinity" (Giovanni Papini, The Devil, p. 81).

Lucifer, or Satan of the Old and New Testaments, initially was in heaven but fell and took one third of the Hosts of Heaven with him (Isa. 14:12, Rev. 12:9). His fall from heaven was confirmed by the Savior (Luke 10:18). The Devil and his angels are most anxious to inhabit the bodies of mortals (Lk. 8:2633; Matt. 9:32). All the Savior did, has done and will do, is the antithesis of Lucifer, but both Jesus and Satan are offspring of God the Father, as are all members of the human family.

Why Don't Latter-day Saints Use Wine in Their Sacrament?

Latter-day Saints emphatically affirm our reliance on the atoning blood of Christ for the remission of sins, as attested to in the bible [Col 1:14; 1 Peter 1:18-19; 1 John 1:7; Rev 7:14] and modern scripture [1 Nephi 12:10; Mosiah 3:7, 11; 4:2; Alma 5:21, 27; 21:9; 24:13; 34:36; Helaman 5:9; Esther 13:10; Moroni 4:1; 5:2; 10:33; D&C 20:40; 27:2; 76:69; Moses 6:62].

Even the sacrament prayer for the administration of the water affirms the symbolism of the atoning blood. It states in part ". . . bless and sanctify this water to the souls that drink of it, that they do it in remembrance of the blood of thy Son, which was shed for them" [D&C 20:79].

As to our use of water in place of the grape juice [new wine - see Isa 65:8], it is important to note that initially grape juice was used in the sacrament both in the early church [Matt 26:28-29] and in the latter-day Church [D&C 20:79, History of the Church 1:78]. As a precaution against the enemies of the Church poisoning or adulterating the grape juice sold to the Saints, a change was authorized by the Lord [History of the Church 1:106-08; Church History and Modern Revelation, 1:132; Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual, p 55]. The Lord revealed "that it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when ye partake of the sacrament, if it so be that ye do it with an eye single to my glory- remembering unto the Father my body which was laid down for you, and my blood which was shed for the remission of your sins" [D&C27:2]

It is interesting to note that the command throughout the scriptures was not to partake of the bread and the wine, but the bread and the cup [Matt 26:26-27; Mark 14:22-23; Luke 22:17, 19,20; 1 Cor 11:24-26]. It thereforeappears that it was not the wine that was being empathized but the "bitter cup" [D&C 19:18] of which Christ would partake [Matt 20:22-23; 26:39, 42; Mark 10:38; 14:36; Luke 22:20, 42; John 18:11; 1 Cor 10:21]. This also in conformity with the Old Testament usage of the term "cup" to symbolize suffering [Ps 11:6; 75:8; Isa 51:17, 22; Jer 25:15, 17, 49:12; see also Jesus the Christ, p. 620, note 8].

It is noteworthy that some early Christians used both water and wine in sacrament. Justin Matyr [ca 140 AD] recorded:

On Sunday we hold a meeting in one place for all who live in the cities or the country nearby. The teachings of the Apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time is available. When the reader has finished, the president gives a talk urging the inviting us to imitate all these good examples. When then all stand together and send up our prayers. As noted before, bread wine and water is brought forth after our prayer. The president also sends up prayers and thanksgiving. The people unitedly give their consent by saying "Amen" The administration takes place, and each one receives what has been blessed with gratefulness. The deacons also administer to those not present . . . We all choose Sunday for our communal gathering because it is the first day, on which God created the universe by transforming the darkness and the basic elements, and because Jesus Christ - our Redeeming Savior - rose from the dead on the same day [First Apology, pp. 65-67; see also Vesal and Wallace, The Firm Foundation of Mormonism, p. 231].

This practice was also mentioned by Pope Julius I [337 AD] in a decree which stated: "But if necessary let the cluster be pressed into the cup and water mingled with it" [Gratian, De Consecratione, Pars III, Dist. 2, c. 7, as cited by Leon C. Field, Oinos: A Discussion of the Bible Wine Question, New York, 1883, p. 91, and Samuele Bacchiocchi, Wine in the Bible, pp. 109-10]. This practice of mixing wine and water may be related to the fact that both blood and water were shed on the cross. John recorded that "one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forth-with came there out blood and water" [John 19:34]. John latter recorded that "there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one" [1 John 5:8]. In like manner baptism by water was also related by Paul to Christ's death [Rom 6:3-5].

Samuele Bacchiocchi, a non-LDS scholar, has observed, "An investigation. . . of such Jewish Christian sects as the Ebionites, the Nazarenes, the Elkesaites, and the Encratites, might provide considerable support for abstinence from fermented wine in the Apostolic Church. The fact that some of these sects went to the extreme of rejecting altogether both fermented and unfermented wine using only water, even in the celebration of the Lord's Supper, suggests the existence of a prevailing concern for in the Apostolic Church" [Wine in the Bible, p. 181]. It also suggests that early Christians understood that "it mattereth not what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink when [partaking] of the sacrament" [D&C 27:2]

Catholic, at a much later period, also substituted the eucharist for the bread and wine of the Lord's Supper, believing that it would literally be turned into the flesh and blood of the Lord. [See James Cardinal Gibbons, The Faith of our Fathers, pp. 235-50].

Although the later practice was introduced during a period of apostasy, it nonetheless shows that some Christians felt it was permissible to modify the observance of the sacrament service even without direction of the Lord. The LDS sacrament service, on the other hand, is always observed within the guidelines given by the Lord and as prescribed in the scriptures [see John 6:53-54; Acts 2:46; 20:7; 1 Cor 11:23-30; Moroni 4 and 5; D&C 20:75-79; 27:1-4; and additional information on the LDS reliance on Christ's atonement see Gilbert W. Scharffs, The Truth About "The God Makers", pp. 192-93].

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.

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.

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

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

Outrageous Claims Concerning LDS Doctrine of Forgiveness

An LDS Reply to those who seek to shake the faith of others:

Written by Wer62

Evangelical religious groups often times will hunt for hard questions for LDS members to answer in order to shake the faith of those who may not be as secure as others. One such question was posed based on Spencer W. Kimballs book "Miracle of Forgiveness"

A central teaching in the LDS Church is that forgiveness from God is available, but it is conditioned upon repentance.* LDS Prophet Spencer W. Kimball taught that human beings are required to forgive others even though they be unrepentant.**

How is it that man is able to forgive the unrepentant, while it is "impossible" for God to do so? Is man above God in that he can forgive even the unrepentant?

*See Miracle of Forgiveness, pp. 165-166; Mormon
Doctrine, Forgiveness, p. 292** See Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 282

In order to answer this question one must have a good understanding of judgment, repentance and forgiveness. God has an obligation by his own words to judge mankind so that no unclean thing may enter into heaven. We must follow those laws, ordinances, and commandments that God has set before us as well as following the Lord's judgment. (Lev 18:4) It is all too clear that judgment is God's and not man's to perform. We are to do no unrighteousness in judgment of our fellow man. (Lev 19:15-18)

We know that each man's judgment comes from the Lord. (Prov 29:26) We also know that there is a real danger when performing judgment against our fellow man for if you judge your fellow man you will be judged by the same measure. (Matt 7:1-2) The Lord's Prayer and explanation sums up forgiveness and judgment especially on judgment of man by man. You will be forgiven if you forgive those who trespass and debt against you. (Matt 6:9-15) It does not matter if the offending party has repented or not as judgment is not for man against man. We are to forgive.

This however does not negate repentance for those who humble themselves before the Lord in repentance shall have salvation. (2 Cor 7:8-10) Those who don't repent will parish. (Luke 13:5) We must repent of our sins before God. God has made it abundantly clear that judgment belongs to him and that we are to forgive our fellow man. In conclusion while this may be a hard task for us as mankind to perform I see no contradiction between the statements made by Spencer W. Kimball concerning repentance and forgiveness. Does this make man above God? No as we have not learned how to righteously, lovingly judge like God.

Who Says the LDS Teach Saved by Works?

An LDS perspective to Faith and Works and their Role in Salvation!

by Wer62

Many detractors of the LDS faith state without hesitation that the LDS teach that works save us. In response to their claim I would state that those individuals have not spent much time reading the Gospel Principals Manual. The Manual clearly states the role of works in which all Christian religions practice even if it is not admitted.

What is one of the least understood concepts is that works are required and will be accomplished through ones faith. Works by themselves however doesnÂ’t save you. A person can be a good person doing works for others, serving his fellow man and not achieve salvation. That stated however, you cannot call themselves a faith based Christian and not do good works.

First, let us define salvation. There are many Christian religions that teach salvation as in the resurrection. This simply is not the case. We all will be resurrected. So, where does salvation actually occur? Salvation occurs after the judgment. You may know you are doing the right thing while on Earth but you are not “saved” until after the judgment. We know this because there will be many that will stand before Christ and say to him, have I not prophesied in your name and done many works in your name and Jesus will answer them with I knew you not. (Paraphrased) Those people may have thought they were saved but were not. This is why a person has to study it out for themselves to be sure what they are doing is correct in the eyes of the Lord.

Now lets take about what is taught about salvation from an LDS perspective.

Chapter 12 in the Gospel Principals Manual: - TAtonementent:

Jesus Christ “came into the world … to be crucified for the world, and to bear the sins of the world, and to sanctify the world, and to cleanse it from all unrighteousness; that through him all might be saved”. The great sacrifice he made to pay for our sins and overcome death is called the Atonement. It is the most important event that has ever occurred in the history of mankind: “For it is expedient that an atonement should be made; for according to the great plan of the Eternal God there must be an atonement made, or else all mankind must unavoidably perish; … yea, all are fallen and are lost, and must perish except it be through the atonement”

It is clear that we teach that through Jesus Christ we might be saved. The reason the word "might" is used is because we each have a choice to make. We can choose to follow the will of our Lord or not. If we do not come to Christ we cannot be saved. I am positive that most Christian religious groups if not all will agree with this principal. The LDS teach this as demonstrated in the above cite from the Gospel Principals manual. Others topics of the Atonement mentioned in chapter 12 are the following:

• The Atonement Was Necessary for Our Salvation
• Christ Suffered and Died to Atone for Our Sins
• The Atonement and Resurrection Bring Resurrection to All

The Atonement Makes It Possible for Those Who Have Faith in Christ to Be Saved from Their Sins Christ Was the Only One Who Could Atone for Our Sins Clearly the LDS teach that the atonement of Christ is for our salvation and to pay for the price of sin but that grace is only extended to those people who accept Christ and his teachings.

Now lets talk about like personal responsibility. We each have a personal responsibility when it comes to our own salvation. In James we read, "Faith without works is dead". One must consider also how we are judged. In the Book of Revelation it is clearly stated we will be judged according to our works. Works are a direct relation to our faith. We do the works because we have faith in Christ. I believe most Christian group should agree with this principal to remain in line with the scriptures. 2 Nephi 25:23 "For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do." (also see Rom 7:4-6) This leads us to believe that some work must be performed. You would have to agree that Jesus Christ is our example while here on Earth and he performed works.

Lets look closer at what is taught concerning work in the LDS Church.

Work and Personal Responsibility - Chapter 27

Our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ have shown us by their examples and teachings that work is important in heaven and on earth. God worked to create the heavens and the earth. He caused the seas to gather in one place and the dry land to appear. He caused grass, herbs, and trees to grow on the land. He created the sun, the moon, and the stars. He created every living thing in the sea or on the land. Then he placed Adam and Eve on the earth to take care of it and to govern the other creatures (Genesis 1:1–28).Jesus said, “My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” (John 5:17). He also said, “I must work the works of him that sent me” (John 9:4). We Are Commanded to Work. Work has been the way of life on earth since Adam and Eve left the Garden of Eden. The Lord said to Adam, “In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread” Genesis 3:19). Adam and Eve worked in the fields so they could provide for their own needs and the needs of their children (Moses 5:1). The Lord said to the people of Israel, “Six days shalt thou labour” Exodus 20:9.

In the early days of the restored Church, the Lord told the Latter-day Saints, “Now, I, the Lord, am not well pleased with the inhabitants of Zion, for there are idlers among them” D&C 68:31). All that stated work by itself cannot save us and neither is it stated as such in the Gospel Principals Manual of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. We are saved by grace but that stated we must follow the laws and ordinances of the Lord our Christ. We have to have Faith and without faith and works salvation is just not possible because the grace of Christ will not be extended to us. It is true grace is a free gift, why is that. No man is perfect and no matter what you do you cannot earn you way to heaven. You can't pay money; you can't just do good deeds with the idea that you will obtain salvation. It has to be understood that we do these things out of Faith because we are commanded to do so.

There are components of salvation and heavenly Father wants to see all of his Children saved. He provided a way through his son Jesus Christ to Atone for our sins that by his grace we might be saved. In return we are asked to have Faith and do the works that are asked of us to follow the laws and ordinances including repentance. Grace is extended to us after we show faith and faith will result in good works. We are commanded to "go forth and teach all nations and baptize them in the name of Christ" this in itself is a work. This cannot be denied! Work is an outward show of ones faith and faith is how we obtain grace.

The Bible Fraud

The Bible is the most misused and misunderstood book ever written. It has been used to justify all manner of impropriety, wickedness, and falsehood. Every spiritual fraud ever prepetrated in the history of Judaism or Christianity has claimed support from the Bible. On the authority of the Bible the Jews crucified Christ, stoned Stephen, and imprisoned and beat the Apostles. With the Bible as justification put Christians "unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women" (Acts 22:4). After the death of the Apostles the Bible was taught by authority of the whip and the sword. To the Reformers it became the source of priesthood authority and the final will and testament of their mute God.

A knowledge of what the Bible does and does not claim for itself is important in protecting against its misrepresentations and misuse. Let us consider one of five common frauds perpetuated in the guise of loyalty to the Bible.

The Bible is Not Infallible

The fundamental error of the Bible cultists is the doctrine of Bible infallibility. This tenet holds that the Bible must be "completely authoritative and trustworthy in all that is asserts as factual, whether in matters of theology, history, or science." [1] The Bible, it is held, "does not contain error of any kind." [2]

It has to be significant that the Bible makes no such claim for itself! There is not a single passage of scripture that can properly be used to sustain such a view. Nor is there any agreement among those maintaining such a position as to what verion of the Bible should be used or what the Bible is saying on a host of matters.

The argument simply is that the Bible cannot be trusted in all things. Because of endless textual and translation problems, many scholars concede error in our modern Bible while maintaining the infallability of the original manuscripts as written by their authors. The position is secure since none of the original manuscripts exist and no one would have to accept them even if they were found.

It is helpful to ask why the fundementlists in the Protestant word find it so necessary to argue for an infallible Bible. The answer is the Bible is all they have. They have no living prophets, they have sealed the heavens to revelation, and even if they were to find some ancient manuscript written by one of the new testament writers, they have locked themselves into a postion that would prevent them from adding it to the canon of scripture. The Bible is all they have, and as such it becomes the sole source of their authority. From the Bible they claim priesthood authority, doctrine, and the commission to preach and teach. Without it they have NOTHING. We as LDS seek the word of God not a book that has been mistranslated, misrepresented and ultimately misused by men of all centuries.

Stone, leaves, bark, skins, wood, metals, baked clay and pypyrus were all used anciently to record inspired messages. Our concern with the ancients is not the perfection with which messages were recorded but the inspiration of those messages. More importantly, we are interested in the fact that the heavens were open to them, that they had such a message to record. Knowing as we do that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever, the fact that he spoke to them, however poorly they preserved it, witnesses that he can speak to to us. After all, the Bible is only black ink on white papper until the spirit of God manifests its true meaning to us; if we have obtained that, do we need to quibble over the Bible's suitability as a history and science text?

Wer62

________________________________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] Gleason L. Archer, Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties [Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan 1982], pg 19

[2] Haold Lindsell, The Battle for the Bible [Grand Rapids Michigan: Zondervan, 1976], pg 18

What is Considered LDS Doctrine

What is Considered LDS Doctrine

by Wer62 (Ed)

Often times when confronted with those who oppose the LDS faith system people will quote the Journal of Discourses in order to prove a point not understanding what the Journal of Discourses represents or who published it.

So what constitutes genuine Mormon Doctrine? What is the LDS equiveaient of "nihil obstat" and "imprimatur"? What do Latter Day Saints Believe? Can something be said to be "Mormon Doctrine" if any Latter-day Saint anywhere believes it? If your LDS neighbor believes that frogs cause warts, or the Earth is flat does that make those ideas LDS doctrine? If an LDS missionary believes the Earth is hallow and the lost ten tribes are hiding in it does his or her belief make it LDS doctrine? Of course not!

Virtually every religion has procedures for distinguishing the individual beliefs of its members from the official doctrines of the church, and so do the LDS. In fact among the Mormons the procedure is remarkably similar to that of many Protestant denominations. An example of the procedure can be taken from the records of the Fiftieth Semiannual General Conference of the LDS Church on October 10th 1880. President George Q cannon addressed the conference:

I hold in my hand the book of Doctrine and Covenants and also the book The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of God. In Kirkland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form, as first printed was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the books and their contents as from God and binding upon us as a people

Subsequent Changes of content in the Standard Works of the Church have been presented similary to the membership in general. Conference to receive a sustaining vote. It is that sustaining vote, by the individual members or by their representatives, that makes the changes officially binding upon the membership as the doctrine of the Church.

When Wilford Woodruff , as President of the Church, committed the Latter-day Saints to discontinue the practice of plural marriage, his official declaration was submitted to the Sixtieth Semiannual General Conference of the Church on October 6th 1890, which was accepted unaimmously as authoritative and binding. It was that vote that made the document "official". Now this document has been added to the Doctrine and Covenants.

B.H. Roberts, a General Authority of the LDS Church summarizes the issue perhaps as well as anyone has:

The Church has confined the sources of doctrine by which it is willing to be bound before the world to the things that God has revealed, and which the Church has officially accepted, and those alone. These world include the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, the Pearl of Great Price; these have been repeatedly accepted and endorsed by the Church in general conference assembled, and that are the only sources of absolute apparel for our doctrine.

Anyone claiming that the LDS Church teaches doctrine or promotes doctrine outside of these sources no matter who spoke it is inaccurate.

Wer62 (Ed)