I’ve mentioned a recent missionary moment. Unfortunately, it turned out to be less a sincere inquiry and more an effort to witness to a hapless Mormon blogger. I thought it might be an interesting read for anyone wanting to sift through the thread below.
I’ve lost the first contact that initiated this dialogue, but that’s of little consequence. It was a short question asking about Latter-day Saints’ belief relating to Original Sin. The ensuing conversation can be found below.
To: Well-Meaning Witness
I figured this was an easier way to answer your questions. I hope you don’t mind. I also hope it doesn’t seem too long winded or complicated; I tried to include hyperlinks where appropriate so that you could study further if you were interested in that. I wanted to be concise, while still trying to be as clear as possible so that you’d have enough information to feel like your questions was answered.
One section below, “The Short of It”, is my attempt to summarize the rest of this email and answer your question succinctly. It may be worthwhile to read it before you start on the other sections.
In many faiths, original sin is the doctrine that all people, except for the Virgin Mary and Jesus Christ, inherit personal guilt because of the transgression of Adam and Eve (this is also why infant baptisms are so important in some churches – the stain of original sin is removed as quickly as possible because those that die while under original sin stand condemned).
Latter-day Saints believe that while we inherit the effects of the Fall of Adam and Eve, we are not personally responsible for the sins of anyone else, including our first parents. Our second Article of Faith states that
“We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.”
For more on Latter-day Saints and Original Sin, see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry for Original Sin. Another good place might be this wiki page by FAIR on the Bible and the doctrine of Original Sin.
The Effects of the Fall
And what of the effects of that Fall? The first effect was physical death. After partaking of the fruit, Adam and Eve were mortal, and could die, and this condition was passed on through their progeny. The resurrection of Jesus Christ unconditionally overcomes this effect – “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive” (1 Corinthians 15:22).
The second effect was sin, or spiritual death, separation from God. Adam and Eve were no longer innocent – their eyes had been opened – and as such they had the wonderful gift of agency. Latter-day Saints view the Fall not as a tragedy, but an integral part of God’s plan – a “Fall” forward, and not downward, if you will – because this gift of agency was also passed on through the children of Adam and Eve. We have the right to choose between good and evil, and through making choices we experience growth.
Unfortunately, with the gift of agency comes sin, because none of us are perfect – “all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23). This tendency of mankind to sin is why we so desperately need a Savior. A scripture from the Book of Mormon describes this dilemma, and how essential the Atonement of Jesus Christ is:
“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth of the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord” (Mosiah 3:19).
For more on Latter-day Saints and the Fall, see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry for the Fall of Adam.
The Triumph of the Atonement
The Atonement of Jesus Christ is designed to overcome the Fall of Adam and Eve. The first effect was physical death. The son of a mortal mother, Jesus inherited the power to lay down his life; but the son of an immortal, divine Father, the Only Begotten Son, he also inherited the power to take that life up again. The resurrection of Jesus overcomes this effect – “and thus God breaketh the bands of death, having gained the victory over death; giving the Son power to make intercession for the children of men” (Mosiah 15:8). This gift is unconditional, as I mentioned above, and will be given to all who have ever lived or who ever will live.
The second effect of the Fall was spiritual death, or sin. Because Jesus was the only sinless man to ever live on this earth, and therefore not subject to spiritual death, he was the only one who could make that sacrifice. His sacrifice was indeed infinite, and he paid the price of the sins of all people. Yet this gift is not completely unconditional. Now, the conditions we must meet in order to qualify for this gift differ from church to church, and we don’t necessarily need to get into that now, but at least Christians and Latter-day Saints can agree that we must meet some condition before qualifying for the incredible grace of the Lord Jesus Christ.
For more on Latter-day Saints and the Atonement, see the Encyclopedia of Mormonism entry for the Atonement.
The Short of It
So, how can I sum up those sections into a brief answer of your question? Like this:
Indeed, the atoning sacrifice for the sins of all the world needed to be offered by someone perfect and sinless. And it was! The perfect, sinless life of the Savior allowed him to atone for us, and his divinity allowed him to conquer death so that we all can be resurrected.
Yet the doctrine of original sin as understood by much of Christianity is incomplete. Do we all suffer death because of the Fall of Adam? We do. Do we all make mistakes because of our agency? We most certainly do. But are we guilty because of the sins of our first parents? We are not, and that fundamentally changes your question. It is true that only Jesus Christ was sinless, but this is not due to mankind’s guilt born of the Fall. It’s because we all naturally make mistakes because of our fallen nature.
I love my Savior, and I am grateful every day for his atoning sacrifice in my behalf. I like the words of Lehi, a prophet in the Book of Mormon. He wrote,
“Wherefore, redemption cometh in and through the Holy Messiah; for he is full of grace and truth.
“Behold, he offereth himself a sacrifice for sin, to answer the ends of the law, unto all those who have a broken heart and a contrite spirit; and unto none else can the ends of the law be answered.
“Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.”
There are other doctrines, differences between mainstream Christianity and Mormonism, that play parts in this, and you can look into them if you’re interested. One may be the doctrine of the Godhead – we believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose but are three distinct individuals (see here or here). Another is the LDS doctrine of exaltation, which I blogged briefly about here – we believe not that God and man are different species, but that His goal for us is to one day become like He is, and that we can become like He is because we are His children.
I tried to do a good job answering your question, but if there is something else that I didn’t quite make clear, please let me know. Thanks again for your question. I may not “approve” your comment since I don’t want to get the original post too off topic, but maybe I’ll blog about this in the future.
From: Well-Meaning Witness
Yo, thank you for replying.
I scanned through it and a few things popped up…
‘It is true that only Jesus Christ was sinless, but this is not due to mankind’s guilt born of the Fall. It’s because we all naturally make mistakes because of our fallen nature.’
So why doesn’t Jesus naturally make mistakes too, if he is simply a man just like the rest of us?
‘We believe that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in purpose but are three distinct individuals’
Hey, so do we! They’re definitely distinct individuals… with different roles, but all having the essence of God in them. But anyway, I don’t think arguing over the Trinity is gonna help!
THIS caught my eye…
‘We believe not that God and man are different species, but that His goal for us is to one day become like He is, and that we can become like He is because we are His children’
Where does this belief come from?
Hey I hope I don’t come across argumentative or ignorant or anything like that. I often appear to type rude, but I’m just too lazy to try to articulate things in a kind way… Just so you know – I’m cheery on this end!
Actually, I suppose we have different beliefs and both sincerely believe them (PS I admire you for that!)… So my question to you would be – What would it take to convince you that Mormonism is false?
For example… If the bones of Jesus were someday discovered and they did a DNA test on the bones and compared it with a DNA test on the shroud, and if somehow it was clearly and irrefutably concluded that these were the bones of Jesus, would you continue to be a Mormon since the Bible said that the tomb was empty because Christ had bodily risen and ‘If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless’?
Would that at least cause you to consider that Mormonism may be false? What if the gold plates from which Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon were someday discovered and translated by twenty professional Egyptologists and if their translation bore no resemblance to the Book of Mormon, would that make you seriously consider that maybe Mormonism is false?
To: Well-Meaning Witness
I don’t think you’re being argumentative or rude at all. I’m happy to discuss any questions you have.
As to your first question, I think that it’s my fault for the misunderstanding. I hope you’ll excuse any faults in these discussions, as you’re talking to a religion and philosophy enthusiast, but a simple amateur all the same .
I didn’t mean to de-emphasize the divinity of the Savior, just to emphasize my point about original sin. Jesus is certainly not ‘a man just like the rest of us’; he is the Son of God and God himself (see John 1:1-5). Latter-day Saints completely believe in this divinity.
As to your second point, I’m fine not discussing the Trinity and the Godhead (that discussion can be very involved), and you’re right that there are some elements of similarity. But the Latter-day Saint belief of the Godhead and the Christian belief of the Trinity are two very different doctrines.
Where Belief Comes From
I’m going to spend a little more time on your third point. It deals specifically with an LDS doctrine referred to a number of ways – the deification of man, the nature of God and man, exaltation, theosis, or the divine nature/potential of man. It’s one of the most unique doctrines of the LDS Church, and one of the most frequently demonized by mainstream Christianity. If you’d like to talk about it more, I’d be happy to, but since you’re question didn’t ask about that specifically I’ll shelf it for now (it also can be involved).
I think a story will help answer your question, “Where does this belief come from?”
A Mormon named Ross Baron held some question-and-answer sessions in his southern California community. At one session, he was asked a question similar to, “Where does this belief come from?” This is what took place, in his own words (see this blog post of mine):
“[This] premise that oft-times we get drawn into is exemplified by a guy from the Christian Research Institute. He stands up and he says, ‘The Church bases their work for the dead on John 3:5, 1 Corinthians 15:29, 1 Peter 4:6, 1 Peter 3:18-20…’
“He starts this way, and I said, ‘Excuse me; stop. That’s incorrect.’
” ‘What do you mean?’
” ‘The Church doesn’t base the work for the dead on the Bible.’
” ‘Now, I’m going to say something, and I want you to take very close note. The Church is not based on the Bible. The Church is based on what the Bible is based on: revelation, through prophets.’ “
Later Baron says, “Now that’re hard core.” I completely agree!
Because Christians believe in a closed cannon (i.e., that the Bible contains all that God has said or will ever say), the doctrines of mainstream Christianity come from interpreting that Word. Different sects, different churches, arise because of different interpretations of the same scriptures.
The doctrines of the LDS Church, though, while supported by the scriptures, do not come from the scriptures. We are taught these doctrines from prophets and apostles, who are God’s mouthpieces. Another story, again from Ross Baron’s Q&A sessions, illustrates this point (see this blog post of mine):
“We were getting near the end of [a Q&A session]. The head pastor of Lighthouse Baptist Church… stood up, and he said this:
“He prefaced it by saying, ‘Well, I have the quote here that will definitively tell all of you here’ – this is what he’s saying, kind of his opening statement – ‘about Mormonism and about how it’s false.’ And he pulls out the quote from Brigham Young where [Young] said that unless we accept Joseph Smith, that we cannot gain salvation. And he said, ‘That’s utter blasphemy, and they claim to be Christians, but we know that that is absolutely false. How do you respond, Mr. Baron?’
“I looked at him, and I said, ‘Well, can I ask you a question?’
“And he said, ‘Certainly.’
“And I said, ‘Imagine you’re living in AD 34. You’re in Jerusalem. It’s Acts chapter two. Peter is preaching about Christ and him crucified. You feel the spirit. Can you, sir, reject Peter’s testimony and accept Christ?’
“And he went, ‘Um.’
“And I knew I had him.
“And I said, ‘That’s exactly how we feel about Joseph Smith: he’s a modern-day Peter. That’s exactly how we feel.’
“Now, think about that. If he had said, ‘Yes, we can reject Peter and accept Christ,’ then we throw the Bible out, right? If he says, ‘No, we can’t [reject Peter and accept Christ],’ then he knows exactly the position Joseph Smith’s in.”
So, where do our doctrines come from? In a tradition more Biblical than even mainstream Christians follow, the doctrines of the LDS Church come from the prophet, a modern day Peter or Paul. Just like the apostles of old wrote letters to the Christians of their day (those letters which make up our New Testament!), the current prophet and apostles tell us God’s word and will today. They are truly the foundation of the Church (see Ephesians 2:19-20). The doctrine of the deification of man is taught by modern prophets, and is supported by the scriptures (including the Bible) because it is not new. It is part of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
For other posts of mine on prophets and related subjects, see here and here. You can also look at the article “Fourteen Fundamentals in Following the Prophet” by a past prophet Ezra Taft Benson for more on how we view prophets.
What it Would Take
I found your last question very intriguing! I want you to know I took it very seriously, and put some real thought into it. I want to ask in return (I’m curious now after you asked me!), what would it take to convince you that Mormonism is true?
The “what if” scenario’s don’t do anything for me (the DNA scenario, for example – wouldn’t such a thing be evidence against both Mormonism and Christianity, since both religions accept the resurrection?), but I get you’re point. What if some day in the future I am confronted with some sort of evidence that goes contrary to what I believe?
Growing up in California, I’ve made many evangelical friends. From time to time they witness to me. Additionally, I’ve been confronted with a variety of claims aimed at discrediting Joseph Smith and the Church (that’s sometimes how I decide what to blog about!). There is always some new piece of evidence “proving” that Mormonism is false. When this happens, I study the topic as diligently as I care to so that I’m informed, and then I take my concern to God (see James 1:5). I can tell you that in each instance I’ve either found an answer that satisfies me, or God reaffirms my testimony and reminds me that his thoughts and ways are higher than mine (see Isiah 55:8-9). Surely, what greater witness can you have, than from God? (see D&C 6:22-23). This is why, when I was a missionary, I would ask those I taught to pray about what they’d learned – their testimony needed to be rooted in a divine witness from God.
I doubt your testimony of Jesus comes from archaeological evidence, Hebraic writing patterns, or DNA. I’d wager it comes, as my testimony has and as Peter’s testimony did, from God. I’ve read the Book of Mormon, and in it’s pages I hear my Savior’s voice. I’ve lived and grown under it’s teachings, and I can feel God’s spirit when I spend time in it’s pages. I’ve prayed, asking God if it’s true, more than once in my life, and each time he tells me it is. Because of this witness, I also know that Joseph Smith is indeed the Lord’s prophet. The teachings of the Church, the teachings of Christ, they enlarge my soul, they enlighten my understanding, and they are “delicious” to me (see Alma 32:28; the chapter, from about verse 21 to the end, is one of my favorite sermons of faith)
Because my witness, my testimony, came from God, it would take a similar communication from God to make me believe something different. Man is flawed, and we get things wrong all the time, so how can I put my trust in the arm of flesh? No, DNA evidence or Egyptologist translations would not convince me, because I put my trust in the Lord.
I hope those answers are satisfying. I’m enjoying the opportunities afforded me because of your questions and this discussion. God bless!
From: Well-Meaning Witness
Hey, thanks for your quick reply!
You know, I’m an amateur too! In fact, this time last year I wasn’t a Christian! There have been massive changes in my life this past year as you can imagine!
Well, reading your final point…
I’ll pick out this sentence-
‘I can feel God’s spirit when I spend time in it’s pages.’
Christianity is trustworthy because the text of the Bible is pure and much of it is confirmed by archaeology and secular history. We also have the proof from Jesus’ resurrection. Mormonism offers no proof of its truthfulness. There is no confirmation of the Book of Mormon from archaeology or history.
Translations by professional Egyptologists of the Book of Abraham papyri are completely different than Joseph Smith’s translation. If his translation skills are in question for the Book of Abraham, they are also in question for the Book of Mormon. Mormon scholars admit this is a serious problem, and attempts to reconcile it fail. Mormonism’s only “proof” is the confirmation God gives when one reads the Book of Mormon – just like you said.
However, this evidence is weak, since people of other religions claim God has convinced them of their own religion’s truthfulness. Who’s confirmation can be trusted, and why? I know plenty of people of different religions who sincerely believe that God is speaking to them, re-assuring them that this is the truth… Muslims believe God speaks to them as they read the pages of the Qu’ran. But they all can’t be right, can they?
When you consider Mormon doctrines such as the plurality of Gods, God having been once a man, man becoming a God, Jesus created by God, an afterlife much different than Jesus describes, and salvation requirements, Mormonism presents a gospel much different than we find in the Bible. Therefore, the Apostle Paul’s words in Galatians 1:8-9 may very well apply:
But though we, or an angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so I say now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.
As you said, no I don’t just base my faith on evidence… But it definitely does play a part! Yes, the message of Jesus and salvation simply ‘clicks’ and I feel a presence of god in my life… but I don’t base my faith on feelings. Feelings change all the time!
Well, I can understand you may think ‘who am I to say this’ to you.. I really don’t want to anger you at all… I just wanted to see how you consider this stuff…
To: Well-Meaning Witness
Put your mind to rest about any reactions like, “Who are you to tell me this!” In fact, I’m not angry at all. If anything, I feel a little bit sad. I’ll tell you why.
I love dialoguing about religion and philosophy, and I really enjoy answering questions about the Church. I enjoy it regardless of the circumstances, because I’ll learn something whether or not anyone else does, but I certainly enjoy it more when I feel like questions on the other side are sincere. I’m worried that this dialogue of ours has devolved into a back-and-forth where you supply me with run-of-the-mill anti-Mormon questions from the nearest anti-Mormon pamphlet or website.
That’s terribly disappointing. Your questions are familiar and stale; it’s the same recycled junk that’s been around since the Church was restored in 1830. I was concerned after your “What might convince you that Mormonism is false?” question. I hoped that I was being unfairly paranoid. It turns out I wasn’t.
I’ll be happy to respond briefly, and I appreciate the practice, but because I doubt your genuineness I’m going to completely ignore most of “your” questions, trusting that you can use Google if your disposition changes. Understanding the concepts in my last email is also a fantastic foundation for all those objections.
If you’re not sincerely interested in continuing, I won’t be offended at all. I promise. But I do offer this one caveat – if you do want to continue dialoguing, I expect a higher degree of sincerity on your part, evidenced by more thoughtful investigation. If you still have trouble connecting the dots on a topic, we can tackle specifics from there. Even someone who cares about me enough to share the true gospel of Christ (that’s the excuse most have given in the past for spewing anti-Mormon drivel) should have more than a two paragraph mastery of such a complex subject.
(As a side note, don’t misunderstand the phrase “spewing anti-Mormon drivel” as my crossover into anger. Still totally not angry. I’ve just become familiar with the scholarly ethics of most Church critics, and the term is appropriate)
If that caveat is not something you’re willing to do, again, I won’t be offended, but I must insist that we waste no more of each other’s time.
Because archaeology and scholarly proof seemed so important to you, I leave you with this quote by Hugh Nibley for your consideration:
“…The words of the prophets cannot be held to the tentative and defective tests that men have devised for them. Science, philosophy, and common sense all have a right to their day in court. But the last word does not lie with them. Every time men in their wisdom have come forth with the last word, other words have promptly followed. The last word is a testimony of the gospel that comes only by direct revelation. Our Father in heaven speaks it, and if it were in perfect agreement with the science of today, it would surely be out of line with the science of tomorrow. Let us not, therefore, seek to hold God to the learned opinions of the moment when he speaks the language of eternity.”
If I don’t hear back from you, it’s been (mostly) fun! Feel free to facebook me, check out my future blog posts (I’m wrapping up a series on The Book of Mormon musical), or email me if you ever feel so inclined (keeping in mind my caveat).
I love the scripture in Galatians. I include the text here from the KJV of Galatians 1:6-9:
“I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.”
Already the Christians in Paul’s day were experience dissension and apostasy. He gives them a caution to keep them steadfast in what they’ve been taught:
“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.”
What is Paul cautioning against? Angels? Nope. Preachers? Nope. His caution is against a gospel that is contrary to that which was preached by he and his apostle-peers.
Ignoring that various interpretations of the Bible make it near impossible to use it as “the standard”, as a fun experiment let’s test your criticism – that we shouldn’t base our belief and faith on revelation from the Holy Ghost – against the gospel found in the New Testament.
Trusting the Holy Ghost
John 14:26 (see also 1 John 5:6 and John 15:26)
- But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
- Would “all things” include the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon? Probably. The only thing left is to discuss how the Holy Ghost speaks to us (though the name the Savior first calls him by gives us a clue).
- If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all me liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him. But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.
- Could one lack wisdom about religious matters? Certainly. And would God answer those prayers? He would – liberally! Again, the only thing left to discuss is how God, through the Holy Ghost, speaks to us.
This is not meant to be an exhaustive list, but I think does the subject justice:
Enlightens the mind – 1 Corinthians 2:9-11
Bring things to our remembrance – John 14:26
Guides us to truth – John 16:13
Testifies of the Father and Son – John 16:14
Some gifts of the Spirit – 1 Corinthians 12:3,8-9
A still, small voice – 1 Kings 19:11-12
It seems that your “gospel” of writing off feelings, ignoring the Holy Ghost, or whatever you may want to call it (it’s not my intent to argue semantics – this list represents for Latter-day Saints what revelation from the Holy Ghost, revelation that confirms the truthfulness of the Book of Mormon, is like, and you may call it what you wish), is actually a gospel other than that which was preached by the early apostles. That makes you…
From: Well-Meaning Witness
I’m won’t lie about it… yes! I completely just used lots of run-of-the mill questions for Mormons – to see what your response would be! If I didn’t want you to know, I would have at least tried to conceal it by using my own words 😉
It doesn’t mean I don’t want to sincerely hear your answer though! After all, if the questions are really that bad, then surely they’ll be easy enough to answer?
I’m really confused… Do Mormons believe the Bible or not? Yes or no? I keep getting Bible quotes from you… but then your beliefs turn into the Book of Mormon. Help me out!
I see you think the Bible has been too corrupt over the years to deem it reliable – would I be right in thinking this? If so, can this be our point of discussion?
‘Bring things to our remembrance’, forgive me, because I got this from South Park and haven’t checked it up yet. But doesn’t Joseph Smith write down his revelation from looking inside a hat (!) and when asked to do it again, he couldn’t do it? Why didn’t God bring the revelation back into remembrance for him?
To: Well-Meaning Witness
(I’m gonna use smilies. This isn’t work or college, so I hope you don’t mind)
Okay, fair enough . Well, answering all of those objections will take quite a long time, and be very involved. I maintain my caveat, that you investigate further before bringing them back to the table – that will make the process a little simpler. This is a good place to find Mormon responses to objections.
If I may, let me offer a suggestion. In a few of my philosophy classes in college, we didn’t have tests. Instead, we had to write long papers (yuk!), and they would all be organized the same way. We would make our argument in favor of something, but then we had to respond to two or three objections. In that analysis, we had to formulate the objection in the strongest way we could, and then give our response.
Now, I’m not saying you go write papers (yuk), but try out that format. One of your criticisms was about the deification of man doctrine. Fair enough. Why not look for Mormon responses, and then formulate the strongest objection to the original criticism that you can (maybe that the belief is actually Biblical, or that it was taught by the early Christian Church Fathers). Then feel free to totally poke holes in those objections! Tear the Mormon response up! But this way, the questions you ask will fundamentally change, and our discussion will be much more productive. True, it’ll be more work on your end, but I’ve made it fairly simply by giving you the FAIR wiki website.
That’s just a suggestion. Take it for what it’s worth .
I’d love to concentrate our discussion on the Bible! Those are some very good questions.
I definitely believe the Bible, as does the rest of my Church! And I definitely believe the Bible is reliable!
We just don’t believe in a closed cannon. Instead, we believe that God spoke to more of his children than just those in the Middle East, and that he continues to speak to us today. Just as you might use both Matthew and John to teach a specific principle, or both the Old Testament and the New Testament, I and my Church use both the Bible and the Book of Mormon.
I just used more of the Bible in my emails because it’s what you believe in.
We do believe that many “plain and precious” truths have been lost from the Bible, but we certainly don’t believe that it is corrupt, useless, or unreliable. We don’t believe that it’s inerrant (without error), and we don’t believe that it’s sufficient (that it contains all we need to know about God or about his plan). But again, in my eyes, that would be like you saying that you use your whole Bible because Luke and Romans don’t contain all we need to know about God. Believing that there’s more isn’t the same as believing that the Bible is unreliable or corrupt.
Also, the Bible never makes a claim that it is either inerrant or sufficient! (and before you throw out the scripture in Revelation, please read my blog post here)
So, in short, I believe the Bible is true, and I believe that is it reliable. I just don’t believe that it’s sufficient, and I don’t believe that God has stopped speaking.
Joseph’s Translating Tools
That’s quite a lot, so I’ll be brief with your last question. I’m not sure about the specific instance you’re talking about (not having something “brought to his remembrance”), so you’ll have to give me more if we want to talk about it. As for the translation, the only thing we know for sure is that it took place “by the gift and power of God” (D&C 135:3). We know he used what he called “seer stones” for part of it, but we’re not sure exactly what they looked like or how he used them. They were fastened to a breastplate by a bow. They likely looked more like funny glasses than a hat
I’ve never known anyone from the UK! Isn’t the internet awesome?
From: Well-Meaning Witness
You see, the way I see the Bible is like a jigsaw… The more I read the Old Testament the more it is shocking just how much it is pointing towards Christ. Then Christ comes and fulfils the prophesies… ‘It is finished’ … He rises from the dead and tells his disciples to go spread the word ‘to the ends of the earth’… Then the Bible contains the spread of the early church.
So what I don’t get is how there’s another episode many many hundreds of years later involving stones and hats and golden plates. Where does this all fit into the picture? Jesus was always talking of fulfilling the scriptures… ‘For it is written…’ Is there a pointer to any Mormon beliefs/J. Smith/etc, from the Old Testament, or Jesus himself?
‘We believe that God spoke to more of his children than just those in the Middle East, and that he continues to speak to us today.’
Of course, that’s why Jesus said the message must be spread to all nations… and look at the growth of his kingdom across all nations today! And he does continue to speak to us today – but does that mean the message changes? I don’t understand why the North American gospel would be so different from the Middle Eastern version?
‘We do believe that many “plain and precious” truths have been lost from the Bible’
…Lets talk about this. Why do you believe this? What are these plain truths? What era did they become lost from the Bible and why?
Do you believe the Old Testament as the inerrant word of God? As there is plenty to suggest that they were established scripture – even Jesus didn’t complain – ‘The Scripture cannot be broken’ (John 10:35).
So is it just the New Testament you have the problem with?
Can we agree that Jesus gave the authority to his disciples to write down this stuff?
Jesus (speaking to the apostles): But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you (John 14:26).
– No mention of authority to future Mr. Smith
– Mr. Smith wasn’t with him from the beginning.
However, when He, the Spirit of truth has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come (John 16:13).
– No mention that Mr. Smith was to come.
– Can we agree that Jesus gave authority to his disciples to write all this stuff down? Therefore fulfilling the scriptures, which is why we have the Old and New Testaments and then it stops…
So tell me, why was there a need for John Smith?
You know, I just want to say something to you Danny boy… thank you so much for giving up your time to email me – I really appreciate it! And although we have different beliefs, its so refreshingly good to discuss with some kind of similarish believer! So often I’m having these conversations with atheists – so thank you my friend!
And yes! What a communications revolution we have lived through! Where are you on this planet then? Utah? I’m joking (you’ll have to get used to my humour)
(At this point I was a little peeved, and a little more exasperated. As you can see from the last message below I decided to stop coddling my Well-Meaning Witness friend. Perhaps that is why this the last part of our exchange.)
To: Well-Meaning Witness
I am in Utah right now (I just graduated from BYU), but I grew up in California and I’m moving to Washington in April to start work.
Now, you remember my caveat – that I expect, if your questions are sincere, you do some homework on your own. You just asked me about whether or not I believed the Old Testament to be inerrant. The answer is no and, in addition to clearly stating earlier I did not, I gave you three links that would have clearly answered that question. I also asked you this question – “If we happened to find Paul’s earlier epistle to the Corinthians, or his epistle to Laodicea, would they belong in the Bible?” You never answered!
And surely someone who is invested in these discussions would know that Mr. Smith’s first name was Joseph, not John. These are small things, and it’s really not a big deal, but it suggests that you’re not doing your homework.
What’s more, this time around you use some proof texts. That’s a fine thing to do, but I’m concerned that you’re “wresting the scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16), and that is not okay. It suggests to me, again, that you’re just pulling these things out of anti-Mormon literature without paying the price to find out what they really mean. For example:
- “It is finished” – does it suggest a closed cannon, or as a popular YouTube video has suggested, a condemnation of religion? Or might John 19:28-30 have reference to the completion of the atoning sacrifice just before the Savior voluntarily gave up his life?
- “The scripture cannot be broken” – does it suggest that the Bible is inerrant, and flawless in it’s current state, or could it suggest, as translated in the NIV, that we should not set it aside the teachings of scripture when confronted by doctrines with which we disagree? (Ironically, Latter-day Saints often use this scripture group as evidence for our belief in the deification of man.)
- Is John 14:26 a reference to Jesus giving his apostles authority, or a reference to him promising them the companionship of the Holy Spirit? (If you want better scriptures about Jesus giving apostles authority, you know, for future reference, see this post of mine, the “Great Desire” section)
- The scriptures in John you quoted don’t mention Joseph Smith, it’s true. And yet, they do not mention those apostles called after the resurrection and ascension of the Savior, like Matthias and Paul.
I feel like you misuse these scriptures. Perhaps it’s innocent, but either way it is irresponsible. For some, even just by reading the context it’s clear that you’re interpretations are off. For others, like the last one, it would just take a moment or two of careful thought.
Now, since we’ve started we’ve talked a little about whether the Bible is inerrant, whether the Bible is sufficient, the manner in which we come to know spiritual truth, the Fall of Adam and Eve, the atonement of Jesus Christ, the nature of prophets, God’s communication with man, the translation of the Book of Mormon, the meaning of “gospel”, archaeology, and a lot of other things in passing that probably merited much deeper discussion. I feel like we switch topics so quickly and cavalierly!
So all this has gotten me thinking about what we’re doing, and I decided that if we want to continue, we need to come up with an objective. That way, when we’re talking, you or I can say, “Let’s shelf that for now – it doesn’t help us reach our objective,” or, “Let’s concentrate on this for now – it helps us reach our objective.”
There’s only one problem – we don’t have an objective! So let’s decide on one. What do you think? Let’s talk about some objectives we hope to reach from our discussion, and when we agree on one we can continue.
That’s the end of it! I guess my Well-Meaning Witness friend decided that there would be no converting me to her version of the “truth”. Such is the case with most witnessing experiences I’ve been involved in – they give up, never having given serious consideration to any of the points I raised.
Hopefully this can be an additional positive contact point that will move my friend towards the gospel. As it says in Doctrine and Covenants 123:12-14,
“For there are many yet on the earth among all sects, parties, and denominations, who are blinded by the subtle craftiness of men, whereby they lie in wait to deceive, and who are only kept from the truth because they know not where to find it—
“Therefore, that we should waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all the hidden things of darkness, wherein we know them; and they are truly manifest from heaven—
“These should then be attended to with great earnestness.”