While it goes without saying that this blog and others like it seek to show the Biblical problems of the Mormon faith, and thus present the true gospel, it is also true to say that some of the arguments used for this purpose are not great.
I have been there many times whether on facebook or face to face and seen Christians present an argument to Mormons that they think easily wins the day, and refutes Mormonism in a single swoop. Yet even I find myself thinking “that does not prove your point at all”. And this the Mormon easily refutes it, and walks alway thinking “those darn evangelicals don’t have a clue.”
My friend Fred W Anson from the blog Beggers Bread and I have decided to co write a series pointing out these arguments, explaining the issues, and also presenting some better arguments you might use instead. We are not saying we get everything right, however from years of experience we have found that Mormons do not find some arguments persuasive, and for good reason.
The Argument:
“Everyone knows that the Biblical canon is closed – it says so at the very end of the Bible in Revelation 22:18 which says:
I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book
So Joseph Smith willfully defied God’s Word by adding new scripture to a canon of scripture that God said was complete and forever closed!”
Why it’s weak:
1) It’s a misinterpretation of the passage.
As Bill McKeever of Mormon Research Ministry explains:
Revelation 22:18 read in context and carefully is referring solely to itself – not the Bible in it’s entirety and not to any other book of the Bible. This is clearer when the verse is considered in it’s full context:
I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright and morning star.
And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.
For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
– Revelation 22:16-21 (KJV)
Notice the use of the terms, ” the words of the prophecy of this book” and “the words of the book of this prophecy” limiting the conditions exclusively to “this book” and “this prophecy”. The language of the text itself limits the scope of these conditions to this book of prophecy – that is, the book that we now know as “The Book of Revelation”.
2) It’s location at the close of the Biblical canon isn’t relevant.
The reasoning behind the order of the books of the New Testament is no mystery: In the ancient world works of literature were bound by category, author, and then finally by length from longest to shortest. [1] As John MacArthur’s Grace to You website explains:
The books in the English Bible follow a subject arrangement and are not in the order they were written. The arrangement mirrors that of the Septuagint, a Greek translation of the Old Testament made a few hundred years before Christ…
The New Testament order is also based on subject categories. First come the historical books–the gospels and Acts. Then come the epistles–first those from Paul, then those written by the other writers. Revelation comes at the end.
The early church always grouped the gospels with Matthew first, followed by Mark or Luke, then the gospel of John. It also arranged the Pauline epistles in two categories–first the epistles to the churches, then the personal letters. It typically arranged those epistles according to size or length. The personal letters and general epistles (non-Pauline writings) appear to follow that arrangement–Hebrews first, followed by the writings of James, Peter, John, and Jude. [2]
So, just as the Old Testament Septuagint had the prophetic books at the end, so does the New Testament – it just so happened that there was only one prophetic book. Sure, one can argue that the order of the books were divinely inspired but it too is a weak argument given all the other evidence that contradicts what essentially amounts to nothing more than confirmation bias laden speculation.
3) Using this same tactic, it also be argued that the New Testament is likewise condemned in the Old Testament.
If one applies this same kind of (sloppy, out of context) exegesis consistently then the New Testament is condemned by similar, earlier passages in the Bible:
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.
– Deuteronomy 4:2 (KJV)What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.
– Deuteronomy 12:32 (KJV)
Yet, many many books and commandments were added to the Biblical canon afterwards – including most the of the Old, all of the New Testament, and Christ’s new commandments in the gospels. And like Revelation 22:18 one need only read these verses in context to see why this isn’t a problem – again, these words applied only to the portion of scripture that they were contained in, not the entirety of the Bible.
4) This argument condemns the Apostle John too.
If Revelation 22:18 is applied to the other canonized writings of the Apostle John (the author of the Book of Revelation) then he’s just as guilty as Joseph Smith is. That’s because the body of evidence demonstrates that the Book of Revelation was the probably first book that John wrote with his gospel and epistles coming later. The approximate timeline is as follows:
The Book of Revelation – circa 68
The Gospel of John – circa 85
The Epistles of John – circa 90-95 [3]
This is because internal evidence in the Book of Revelation would seem to indicate that it was written before 70AD because the Temple in Jerusalem was still standing when it was written:
Revelation 1-11 alludes frequently to the fall of Jerusalem. John is called to measure the temple, without any suggestion that it is destroyed (11:1). Jesus told His disciples that within their generation, not one stone of the temple would be left on top another (Mt. 24:2). The temple was destroyed in A.D. 70 and never rebuilt. Thus, it is evident that Revelation was written before that judgment. [4]
Further, John’s epistles assume that the reader is familiar with material that’s unique to both the Book of Revelation and his gospel narrative:
Many of these themes in 1-3 John are also present in the Gospel of John. The subject of truth and the idea of a commandment of love is prominent in both books, along with the idea that God is light. “Eternal life” is a phrase that occurs with disproportionate frequency in John and 1 John. Common between the Gospel of John and Revelation are the ideas of Christ as the Lamb and the water of life. Christ is described by the Greek word “logos”, meaning “word”, in John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1, and Rev 19:13, but nowhere else in the Bible. Only Rev 1:7 and John 19:34 say Jesus was “pierced.” The picture of Christ as a lamb is also prominent in both books. Finally, Rev 1:1-2, “…John, who bore record of the word of God and the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw”, could be read as saying that the author of this book previously wrote the gospel as well. [5]
So if Revelation 22:18 applies to any and all additional scripture after the Book of Revelation was written then the Apostle John is just as condemned by it as Joseph Smith is.
The Stronger Arguments:
There are actually not one, but two stronger Biblical arguments that can be made for rejecting Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims as well as his alleged new scripture.
First Suggested Strong Argument:
Limit the scope of your argument to the Book of Revelation pointing out that in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST) Joseph Smith both took away from and added to the Book of Revelation thus blatantly and willfully violating Revelation 22:18.
Remarkably, the LdS Church not only doesn’t deny this fact, it boasts about it:
Acting by the spirit of prophecy and revelation, Joseph Smith corrected portions, but not all, of what is amiss in the King James Version of the Bible. In the book of Revelation corrections, for instance, the angels of the various earthly churches become the servants (presiding officers) of those units. The lamb with seven horns and seven eyes becomes a lamb with 12 eyes and 12 horns, thus perfecting the symbolism to identify Christ and his apostles. Chapter 12 is so revised as to identify the woman as the church of God and the child that she brought forth as the kingdom of our God and of his Christ. And so forth.
– LdS Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, “Understanding the Book of Revelation” [6]
Appendix A contains a list of the changes that Joseph Smith made to the Book of Revelation in the Joseph Smith Translation.
Second Suggested Strong Argument:
Use other Bible passages instead of Revelation 22:18 and reframe the argument. Mormon Researcher Bill McKeever explains:
…the Bible contains other warnings regarding those who would attempt to put words in God’s mouth. These include Deuteronomy 4:2; “Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you.” And Proverbs 30:6 states “Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.”
If both passages were strictly speaking to the problem of adding scripture to the canon, it could be argued that nothing should have been written (or accepted) after Moses penned Deuteronomy since it contains the first of such admonitions. In both cases these passages address the temptation for anyone to presumptuously speak for God. God does not take lightly those who would pretend to speak for Him when they were not authorized to do so. In fact, to be found guilty of speaking for God when God did not speak warranted the death penalty according to Deuteronomy 18:20, “But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die.
The real issue lies in whether or not Joseph Smith was really acting as a mouthpiece for the Almighty. Did he truly reflect the mind and will of God by his teachings? Or did he inject his own views into what is today referred to as the “restored gospel”? Since it is obvious that his teachings conflict in many respects with those of the Bible, we must choose the latter.
– Bill McKeever, “Does Revelation 22:18 Condemn the Book of Mormon?”
Another Bible passage that I use in this regard is Deuteronomy 13:1-4 – which I like to cite from the Joseph Smith Translation because: a) It’s identical to the King James Version, and; b) using the Joseph Smith Translation eliminates getting the “it’s not translated correctly” objection from Mormons:
If there arise among you a prophet, or a dreamer of dreams, and giveth thee a sign or a wonder,
And the sign or the wonder come to pass, whereof he spake unto thee, saying, Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them;
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
– Deuteronomy 13:1-4 (JST)
And only did Joseph Smith say, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them” he actually boasted about it while doing so:
I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is…God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
– Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Sermon”[7]
I hope that the reader can see that these are much stronger arguments against Joseph Smith’s claim that he was a true prophet of God. And if you’ve been using the weak argument that has been presented here you’ll consider using these instead.
“Landscape with St John the Evangelist at Patmos” by Gillis Coignet (c. 1542–1599) from the Hermitage Museum
NOTES
[1] This system of arranging literature was called “Stichometry”.
[2] “Why are the books of the Bible in the order they are in? Are they listed chronologically?” Grace to You website, author uncredited
[3] J. W. McGarvey, “A Guide to Bible Study” Appendix 8: Chronological Order of the Books of the New Testament
[4] Carl W. Bogue, Jr., Th.D., “The Dating of the Book of Revelation”, a full treatise of this subject can found in Ken Gentry’s classic work, “Before Jerusalem Fell: Dating the Book of Revelation”.
[5] Craig Davis, “Dating the New Testament”, The Gospel of John, the Letters of 1, 2 and 3 John, and Revelation. Note: While Mr. Davis presumes that the Gospel of John was written prior to the Book of Revelation, this isn’t entirely clear from the text of either book. However, what is clear from the internal evidence is that John’s epistles were written last – after both John’s gospel and the Book of Revelation.
[6] Bruce R. McConkie, “Understanding the Book of Revelation”, Ensign, September 1975. What Mr. McConkie failed to mention here is that Joseph Smith had absolutely no manuscript support – or verifiable support of any kind for that matter – for his changes while the King James translators remained faithful to the source manuscripts they translated from. A fuller explanation and analysis of Joseph Smith’s translation of the Bible can be found on the Mormon Think (click here) and Mormon Research Ministry (click here) websites.
[7] Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Sermon”, Ensign, April 1971; also see “Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith”, p.345
Appendix A: Changes that Joseph Smith made to the Book of Revelation in the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible (JST)
The changes from the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible are italicized in their JST equivalents.
Rev 1:1-8
John received a revelation from Jesus Christ and delivered it to the leaders over the seven churches in Asia rather than the book being a revelation of Jesus Christ.
JST
1 The Revelation of John, a servant of God, which was given unto him of Jesus Christ, to show unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass, that he sent and signified by his angel unto his servant John,
2 Who bore record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed are they who read, and they who hear and understand the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein, for the time of the coming of the Lord draweth nigh.
4 Now this is the testimony of John to the seven servants who are overthe seven churches in Asia. Grace unto you, and peace from him who is, and who was, and who is to come; who hath sent forth his angel frombefore his throne, to testify unto those who are the seven servants over the seven churches.
5 Therefore, I, John, the faithful witness, bear record of the things which were delivered me of the angel, and from Jesus Christ the first begotten of the dead, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.
6 And unto him who loved us, be glory; who washed us from our sins in his own blood, and hath made us kings and priests unto God, his Father. To him be glory and dominion, forever and ever. Amen.
7 For behold, he cometh in the clouds with ten thousands of his saints in the kingdom, clothed with the glory of his Father. And every eye shall see him; and they who pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 For he saith, I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, the Lord, who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.
KJV
1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:
2 Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.
3 Blessed is he that readeth, and they that hear the words of this prophecy, and keep those things which are written therein: for the time is at hand.
4 John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;
5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood,
6 And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
7 Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
8 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.
Rev. 1:16, 20
The seven stars in the Savior’s hand are actually leaders of the seven churches rather than their angels.
JST
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars; and out of his mouth went a sharp two-edged sword; and his countenance was as the sun shining in his strength.
20 This is the mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the servants of the seven churches; and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
KJV
16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.
20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.
Rev. 2: 22
Jezebel and the wicked will be cast into hell rather than into a bed.
JST
22 Behold, I will cast her into hell, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
KJV
22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.
Rev. 2:26–27
Several changes and additions made
JST
26 And to him who overcometh, and keepeth my commandments unto the end, will I give power over many kingdoms;
27 And he shall rule them with the word of God; and they shall be in his hands as the vessels of clay in the hands of a potter; and he shall govern them by faith, with equity and justice, even as I received of my Father.
KJV
26 And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations:
27 And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father.
Rev. 5:6
Twelve servants of God are sent to all the earth rather than seven Spirits of God.
JST
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having twelve horns and twelve eyes, which are the twelve servants of God, sent forth into all the earth.
KJV
6 And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth.
Rev. 12:1—17
Several changes and additions, including a reordering of verses. The woman and the man represent the kingdom of God and the Church of Jesus Christ.
JST
1 And there appeared a great sign in heaven, in the likeness of things on the earth; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars.
2 And the woman being with child, cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up unto God and his throne.
4 And there appeared another sign in heaven; and behold, a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads. And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman which was delivered, ready to devour her child after it was born.
5 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she had a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore years.
6 And there was war in heaven; Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought against Michael;
7 And the dragon prevailed not against Michael, neither the child, nor the woman which was the church of God, who had been delivered of her pains, and brought forth the kingdom of our God and his Christ.
8 Neither was there place found in heaven for the great dragon, who was cast out; that old serpent called the devil, and also called Satan, which deceiveth the whole world; he was cast out into the earth; and his angels were cast out with him.
9 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ;
10 For the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 For they have overcome him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; for they loved not their own lives, but kept the testimony even unto death. Therefore, rejoice O heavens, and ye that dwell in them.
12 And after these things I heard another voice saying, Woe to the inhabiters of the earth, yea, and they who dwell upon the islands of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 For when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man-child.
14 Therefore, to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might flee into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent casteth out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helpeth the woman, and the earth openeth her mouth, and swalloweth up the flood which the dragon casteth out of his mouth.
17 Therefore, the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
KJV
1 And there appeared a great wonder in heaven; a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and upon her head a crown of twelve stars:
2 And she being with child cried, travailing in birth, and pained to be delivered.
3 And there appeared another wonder in heaven; and behold a great red dragon, having seven heads and ten horns, and seven crowns upon his heads.
4 And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth: and the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as it was born.
5 And she brought forth a man child, who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron: and her child was caught up unto God, and to his throne.
6 And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.
7 And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,
8 And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.
9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night.
11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
12 Therefore rejoice, ye heavens, and ye that dwell in them. Woe to the inhabiters of the earth and of the sea! for the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, because he knoweth that he hath but a short time.
13 And when the dragon saw that he was cast unto the earth, he persecuted the woman which brought forth the man child.
14 And to the woman were given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness, into her place, where she is nourished for a time, and times, and half a time, from the face of the serpent.
15 And the serpent cast out of his mouth water as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood.
16 And the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed up the flood which the dragon cast out of his mouth.
17 And the dragon was wroth with the woman, and went to make war with the remnant of her seed, which keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.
Rev. 13:1
The beast of Revelation 13 is in “the likeness of the kingdoms of the earth.”
JST
1 And I saw another sign, in the likeness of the kingdoms of the earth; a beast rise up out of the sea, and he stood upon the sand of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns; and upon his horns ten crowns; and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
KJV
1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Rev. 19: 15, 21
God uses the word of Christ rather than a sword to smite the nations.
JST
15 And out of his mouth proceedeth the word of god, and with it he will smite the nations; and he will rule them with the word of his mouth; and he treadeth the winepress in the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
21 And the remnant were slain with the word of him that sat upon the horse, which word proceeded out of his mouth; and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
KJV
15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.
21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.
Additions in Doctrine & Covenants
And, finally, Doctrine & Covenants 77 is a wholesale addition to the Book of Revelation by claiming to be a divinely inspired interpretation of the book directly from God Himself. For example, the woman [the Church], the child [the kingdom of God], the rod of iron [the word of God], the dragon [Satan], and Michael are explained. The war in heaven is continued on the earth.
Doctrine &Covenants 77
1 Q. What is the sea of glass spoken of by John, 4th chapter, and 6th verse of the Revelation?
A. It is the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state.
2 Q. What are we to understand by the four beasts, spoken of in the same verse?
A. They are figurative expressions, used by the Revelator, John, in describing heaven, the paradise of God, the happiness of man, and of beasts, and of creeping things, and of the fowls of the air; that which is spiritual being in the likeness of that which is temporal; and that which is temporal in the likeness of that which is spiritual; the spirit of man in the likeness of his person, as also the spirit of the beast, and every other creature which God has created.
3 Q. Are the four beasts limited to individual beasts, or do they represent classes or orders?
A. They are limited to four individual beasts, which were shown to John, to represent the glory of the classes of beings in their destined order or sphere of creation, in the enjoyment of their eternal felicity.
4 Q. What are we to understand by the eyes and wings, which the beasts had?
A. Their eyes are a representation of light and knowledge, that is, they are full of knowledge; and their wings are a representation of power, to move, to act, etc.
5 Q. What are we to understand by the four and twenty elders, spoken of by John?
A. We are to understand that these elders whom John saw, were elders who had been faithful in the work of the ministry and were dead; who belonged to the seven churches, and were then in the paradise of God.
6 Q. What are we to understand by the book which John saw, which was sealed on the back with seven seals?
A. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will,mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance, or its temporal existence.
7 Q. What are we to understand by the seven seals with which it was sealed?
A. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.
8 Q. What are we to understand by the four angels, spoken of in the 7th chapter and 1st verse of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that they are four angels sent forth from God, to whom is given power over the four parts of the earth, to save life and to destroy; these are they who have the everlasting gospel to commit to every nation, kindred, tongue, and people; having power to shut up the heavens, to seal up unto life, or to cast down to the regions of darkness.
9 Q. What are we to understand by the angel ascending from the east, Revelation 7th chapter and 2nd verse?
A. We are to understand that the angel ascending from the east is he to whom is given the seal of the living God over the twelve tribes of Israel; wherefore, he crieth unto the four angels having the everlasting gospel, saying: Hurt not the earth, neither the sea, nor the trees, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads. And, if you will receive it, this is Elias which was to come to gather together the tribes of Israel and restore all things.
10 Q. What time are the things spoken of in this chapter to be accomplished?
A. They are to be accomplished in the sixth thousand years, or the opening of the sixth seal.
11 Q. What are we to understand by sealing the one hundred and forty-four thousand, out of all the tribes of Israel—twelve thousand out of every tribe?
A. We are to understand that those who are sealed are high priests, ordained unto the holy order of God, to administer the everlasting gospel; for they are they who are ordained out of every nation, kindred, tongue, and people, by the angels to whom is given power over the nations of the earth, to bring as many as will come to the church of the Firstborn.
12 Q. What are we to understand by the sounding of the trumpets, mentioned in the 8th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work, and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth, even so, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years will the Lord God sanctifythe earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things, and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power, when he shall have sealed all things, unto the end of all things; and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels are the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years—the preparing of the way before the time of his coming.
13 Q. When are the things to be accomplished, which are written in the 9th chapter of Revelation?A. They are to be accomplished after the opening of the seventh seal, before the coming of Christ.
14 Q. What are we to understand by the little book which was eaten by John, as mentioned in the 10th chapter of Revelation?
A. We are to understand that it was a mission, and an ordinance, for him to gather the tribes of Israel; behold, this is Elias, who, as it is written, must come and restore all things.
15 Q. What is to be understood by the two witnesses, in the eleventh chapter of Revelation?
A. They are two prophets that are to be raised up to the Jewish nation in the last days, at the time of the restoration, and to prophesy to the Jews after they are gathered and have built the city of Jerusalem in the land of their fathers.
Each of your “better” arguments suffers from the logical fallacy of circular reasoning:
Your first “strong” argument assumes that Joseph’s commentaries on the Book of Revelation represents changes to the original as written by John, and then concludes that Joseph is a false prophet because he made such changes. In other words: John said don’t change his words. Joseph changed his words. Therefore Joseph falsely changed John’s revelation. Circular.
Your second “strong” argument actually is two arguments, each fallaciously circular:
a. Speaking of Deuteronomy 4:2 and Proverbs 30:6, you state, “In both cases these passages address the temptation for anyone to presumptuously speak for God. God does not take lightly those who would pretend to speak for Him when they were not authorized to do so.” You then conclude: “Since it is obvious that his teachings conflict in many respects with those of the Bible,” he is a false prophet. Or in other words, God commands against falsely prophesying. Joseph falsely prophesied. Therefore Joseph is a false prophet. Circular.
(Incidentally, from whence is your authority to speak for God in telling me that Joseph is not God’s prophet?)
b. Speaking of Deutronomy 13:1-4, you argue: Deutronomy says that if one teaches to go after different gods than God, even prophesying successfully, don’t follow him. Joseph preached a god different than the Biblical God, therefore Joseph taught to go after false gods. Therefore he is a false prophet. Circular.
All these arguments conclude that Joseph was a false prophet, but only work if one of your assumptions is that Joseph was a false prophet.
My life of study and the spiritual confirmations I have received and continue to receive teach me that Joseph Smith was not making it up, but was revealing God’s will and God’s inspiration, not contradicting the Bible, but contradicting false interpretations of the Bible, and that his teachings lead me closer to my Savior and Redeemer and to my God.
Peace.
Well Mr. Meikle, just saying that something is circular doesn’t make it so – and that’s the case here.
@Ted Meikle, you wrote:
“Your first “strong” argument assumes that Joseph’s commentaries”
OK, let’s stop right here. The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) isn’t a “commentary”. As the name states and as it was presented by Joseph Smith at the time both in his journals, sermons, and revelations (see D&C 45, 76, 77, 86, and 91) it is a TRANSLATION. The Church History department of the LdS Church explicitly affirms this in the following article:
http://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng
Trying to reposition the JST as a “commentary” is disingenious apologetic spin pure and simple – there is no evidence to support the label.
@Ted Meikle, you wrote:
“… on the Book of Revelation represents changes to the original as written by John, and then concludes that Joseph is a false prophet because he made such changes. In other words: John said don’t change his words. Joseph changed his words. Therefore Joseph falsely changed John’s revelation. Circular.”
MY RESPONSE:
Nonsense. Simply put Joseph Smith not only changed John’s words but added to them – to deny this is to deny the clear body of evidence.
Fact: We have John’s words in the form of the source original language manuscripts.
Fact: Bible translators diligently strive to translate John’s words from Koine Greek into the closest, most accurate English equivalent taking care not to add to to take away from those words.
Fact: The words that Joseph Smith changed in the JST version of the Book of Revelation are NOT the closest, most accurate English equivalents of John’s words as they appear in the source manuscripts. Further, they’re even different than John’s translated words from the 1769 edition of the King James Bible that Joseph Smith was “translating”[1] from.
Fact: In several places Joseph Smith also ADDED words that do not appear in either the original language source manuscripts or the 1769 King James Bible that Smith was “translating” from. These words were simply ADDED by Smith – period. To cite just one of several examples:
Rev 1:7 JST
For behold, he cometh in the clouds with ten thousands of his saints in the kingdom, clothed with the glory of his Father. And every eye shall see him; and they who pierced him, and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
Rev 1:7 KJV
Behold, he cometh with clouds; and every eye shall see him, and they also which pierced him: and all kindreds of the earth shall wail because of him. Even so, Amen.
And here’s a link to a Greek interliner for Revelation 1, you will notice that Smith’s additions are simply not in the source manuscripts:
http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/rev1.pdf
Fact: Replacing the words used in both the source manuscripts and the 1769 KJV Bible that he was “translating” from eliminated them thus they were effectively “taken away” John’s book of prophecy.
If you require any further evidence for any this I will refer you to Appendix A of the article (see http://wp.me/p25Eco-14y/#a-b )
Further, if you require evidence of what the source manuscripts that the Book of Revelation contain I will refer you to the following Greek/English interlinear: http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Greek_Index.htm
@ Ted Meikle wrote:
“You then conclude: “Since it is obvious that his teachings conflict in many respects with those of the Bible,” he is a false prophet. Or in other words, God commands against falsely prophesying. Joseph falsely prophesied. Therefore Joseph is a false prophet. Circular.”
MY RESPONSE:
Mr. Meikle please show me where I said that – I didn’t. Please don’t put words into my mouth. This is a straw man argument.
Specifically, I said:
“And only did Joseph Smith say, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them” he actually boasted about it while doing so:
I will prove that the world is wrong, by showing what God is…God himself was once as we are now and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret…I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.
– Joseph Smith, “The King Follett Sermon”
(reference = https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng )
@ Ted Meikle Wrote:
“Incidentally, from whence is your authority to speak for God in telling me that Joseph is not God’s prophet?”
Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that or tell you that Joseph Smith isn’t God’s prophet. This is another straw man argument.
However, since you have insisted on posing the question I will now insist on answering it:
A: Joseph Smith IS a false prophet – not because I say so but because he meets every test given in the Bible for determining whether someone is a false prophet or not. I haven’t declared Joseph Smith a false propeht – the Bible has.
And Dueteronomy 13 is just one of several such tests. However, you only have to pass ONE to qualify.
So, my “authority” is God’s Word, the Bible.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
“Speaking of Deutronomy 13:1-4, you argue: Deutronomy says that if one teaches to go after different gods than God, even prophesying successfully, don’t follow him. Joseph preached a god different than the Biblical God, therefore Joseph taught to go after false gods. Therefore he is a false prophet. Circular.”
MY RESPONSE:
Yet another straw man! Is anyone else seeing a pattern here?
No, Mr. Meikle, I have used clear, linear logic in drawing that conclusion. You’ve twisted the argument to make it appear to be circular when it’s not:
X = The Bible states plainly throughout there is only one eternal, and unchanging true God. This is the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as revealed in the Bible, has been and is known and worshipped by God’s covenant people throughout history.
Y = The Bible states in Deuteronomy 13 that if someone says, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them” the Bible states that they are a false prophet.
Z = Joseph Smith taught a multiplicity of gods (in Abraham 4 and elsewhere) and of a god who is an exalted man (The King Follett Discourse) – that is, a different god.
Therefore: According to the test given in Deuteronomy 13 Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
@ Ted Meikle wrote:
“All these arguments conclude that Joseph was a false prophet, but only work if one of your assumptions is that Joseph was a false prophet.”
MY RESPONSE:
Nonsense, no such presumption was made. The arguments conclude that Joseph Smith is a false prophet because that’s where the evidence leads, pure and simple.
You have tried your best to turn linear arguments into circular arguments through the use of straw men. The only circular logic and reasoning here is what you’ve attempted to manufacture through manipulation and obfuscation.
@Ted Meikle, you wrote:
“My life of study and the spiritual confirmations I have received and continue to receive teach me that Joseph Smith was not making it up”
MY RESPONSE:
Really? Then could you please show us the source manuscripts that support the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible? Neither the source manuscripts that the KJV Bible were translated from or the KJV Bible that Smith “translated” the JST from support it. It appears to be completely made up.
Then could you please show us the source manuscripts for the Book of Mormon so we can verify conclusively that it wasn’t made up? Ditto for the Book of Moses, BTW. In the absence of evidence it appears to be completely made up.
And finally, could you explain to us why the Book of Abraham (BoA) has absolutely nothing to do with the actual content of the Joseph Smith Papyri that they were allegedly translated from? From all appearances the BoA appears to be completely made up.
@Ted Meikle, you wrote:
“…but was revealing God’s will and God’s inspiration, not contradicting the Bible, but contradicting false interpretations of the Bible”
MY RESPONSE:
Then if that’s the case why did Joseph Smith teach “other gods, which thou hast not known” in his revelations and sermons? Joseph Smith utterly and completely contradicted the most basic tenet of the Bible – monotheism:
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God — the LORD alone.”
— Deuteronomy 6:4
@Ted Meikle, wrote:
“… and that his teachings lead me closer to my Savior and Redeemer and to my God.”
MY RESPONSE:
Respectfully Mr. Meikle, I have already demonstrated that the teachings of Joseph Smith qualify him as a false prophet according to Deuteronomy 13. The passage is also quite clear what our response to such a person is supposed to be:
Deuteronomy 13:3&4
Thou shalt not hearken unto the words of that prophet, or that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.
Ye shall walk after the Lord your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him.
And verse 3 read like this in modern translations:
“you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams. For the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”
(English Standard Verson)
So, since you were so pointed with me Mr. Meikle I will now be pointed with you: It appears that you have failed the test.
Thank you.
[1] Word in quotes because it’s a stretch to call a work that’s taken from English and given in English a “translation” isn’t it?
@Fred Anson said: “The Joseph Smith Translation (JST) isn’t a ‘commentary’. …Trying to reposition the JST as a ‘commentary’ is disingenious apologetic spin pure and simple – there is no evidence to support the label.”
I’ve no problem calling it a translation. It is consistent with a broader meaning of the word.
The article you cite correctly identifies the nature of the effort: “Joseph’s translation was not carried out in the traditional sense. He didn’t consult Greek and Hebrew texts or use lexicons to create a new English version. Rather, he used a King James Version of the Bible as his starting point and made additions and changes as he was directed by the Holy Ghost.”
http://history.lds.org/article/revelations-in-context-doctrine-and-covenants-joseph-smith-translation-bible?lang=eng
On reflection, “commentary” is too weak. “Revealed commentary” may be better.
@Fred Anson said: “…Simply put Joseph Smith not only changed John’s words but added to them – to deny this is to deny the clear body of evidence.
“Fact: We have John’s words in the form of the source original language manuscripts….”
This is what makes the argument circular. (Or, to use a legal objection, you “assume facts not in evidence.”) You declare as a fact that we have John’s original words, which is not true. The earliest known fragment of the text is from the late 2nd century A.D. and the major sources are from the 3rd through the 10th centuries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation
@Fred Anson said: “Mr. Meikle please show me where I said that [that is, where I said “Since it is obvious that his teachings conflict in many respects with those of the Bible”] – I didn’t. Please don’t put words into my mouth.”
You make your argument by quoting wholesale from from Bill McKeever. The words quoted are his. They are the central premise to your argument.
@Fred Anson said: “@ Ted Meikle Wrote: ‘Incidentally, from whence is your authority to speak for God in telling me that Joseph is not God’s prophet?’
“Again, you’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say that or tell you that Joseph Smith isn’t God’s prophet. This is another straw man argument.”
Well, you referred to your arguments as “arguments that can be made for rejecting Joseph Smith’s prophetic claims” and as “arguments against Joseph Smith’s claim that he was a true prophet of God.”
In your response you said: “So, my ‘authority’ is God’s Word, the Bible.’” In this response you unearth one of the tragedies of historic Christianity—the shutting of the door to God’s continued revelation of His word (which, in turn, opens the door to misinterpretations of the Bible). Ironically, the concept of sola scriptura is non-Biblical.
@Fred Anson said:
“X = The Bible states plainly throughout there is only one eternal, and unchanging true God. This is the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as revealed in the Bible, has been and is known and worshipped by God’s covenant people throughout history.
“Y = The Bible states in Deuteronomy 13 that if someone says, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them” the Bible states that they are a false prophet.
“Z = Joseph Smith taught a multiplicity of gods (in Abraham 4 and elsewhere) and of a god who is an exalted man (The King Follett Discourse) – that is, a different god.
“Therefore: According to the test given in Deuteronomy 13 Joseph Smith is a false prophet.”
Your argument is that Joseph’s teachings are inconsistent with the Bible’s descriptions of the nature of God. They are not. They are inconsistent with the traditional Christian interpretation of what the Bible says about the nature of God, as primarily established negotiations of a council of theologians over 300 years after Christ died.
This is a much bigger topic than could be treated properly in the context of responding your your post, and this does not seem like a proper place to address it. If you are interested in part of what I believe about the nature of my Savior and my Heavenly Father, you could take a look at
http://meiklesmusings.blogspot.com/2012/01/normal-0-microsoftinternetexplorer4.html (this is a project not completed, but it is a good start of a summary of my beliefs).
Peace. Sorry if I have been too disputatious.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
On reflection, “commentary” [for the JST] is too weak. “Revealed commentary” may be better.
MY RESPONSE:
No, “Revealed Commentary” is just more apologetic spin – nothing else.
Joseph Smith never once stated that he was doing a “commentary” and stated repeatedly and stedfastly that he was doing a TRANSLATION. No other word was used for it:
Joseph Smith, Jr. 2 July 1833 Journal Entry:
=============================================
“We this day finished the TRANSLATION of the Scriptures, for which we returned gratitude to our Heavenly Father.”
(History of the Church, 1:368–69)
D&C 76
15 For while we were doing the work of TRANSLATION, which the Lord had appointed unto us, we came to the twenty-ninth verse of the fifth chapter of John, which was given unto us as follows—
D&C 77
Revelation given to Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, about March 1832. Joseph Smith’s history states, “In connection with the TRANSLATION of the Scriptures, I received the following explanation of the Revelation of St. John.”
And LdS Scripture calls it a TRANSLATION:
D&C 86
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, December 6, 1832. This revelation was received while the Prophet was reviewing and editing the manuscript of the TRANSLATION of the Bible.
D&C 91
Section 91
Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Kirtland, Ohio, March 9, 1833. The Prophet was at this time engaged in the TRANSLATION of the Old Testament. Having come to that portion of the ancient writings called the Apocrypha, he inquired of the Lord and received this instruction.
Finally, according to Joseph Smith, even Jesus Christ calls it a TRANSLATION:
D&C 45
60 And now, behold, I [Jesus Christ] say unto you, it shall not be given unto you to know any further concerning this chapter, until the New Testament be TRANSLATED, and in it all these things shall be made known;
61 Wherefore I give unto you that ye may now TRANSLATE it, that ye may be prepared for the things to come.
(CAPS added to all above citations for emphasis)
@Ted Meikle
This is what makes the argument circular. (Or, to use a legal objection, you “assume facts not in evidence.”) You declare as a fact that we have John’s original words, which is not true.
MY RESPONSE:
Yet another straw man – this is getting old! My argument was both precise and accurate. And my facts were IN the evidence as presented, as in: “We have John’s words in the form of the source original language manuscripts.” Got that? Once again for emphasis: “”We have John’s words in the form of the source original language manuscripts.”
I never claimed that we have John’s autograph manuscript – such a claim would be ridiculous and wrong. However, as textual critics – including Bart Ehrman, I might add – agree, the manuscript base is so large and extensive that the autograph manuscripts aren’t critical to knowing what they actually said – we know and can reconstruct them with a very very high degree of certainty from the enormous manuscript base that we have:
“In summary, it can be said that while the original autographs of the Old and New Testaments are not in the possession of anyone today, because of all the copies that exist and the work that has been done by biblical historians via the science of textual criticism (which seeks to restore the Bible to its original autographs), there is no loss of confidence among competent scholars that today’s modern Bible reflects the Old and New Testament writers’ work. As an analogy, if the original and preserved unit of measure known as a “yard” was lost in a fire in its holding place in Washington, D.C., there is little doubt that that measurement could be replaced with full assurance through all the exact copies of it that exist elsewhere. The same is true of God’s Word.”
(see http://www.gotquestions.org/original-Bible.html#ixzz3C0kRwej5 )
And you have any lingering doubts on this point I would refer you to the following resources for validation on this point:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/article/the-difference-between-original-autographs-and-original-texts
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/can-we-know-what-the-original-gospel-manuscripts-really-said/
http://www.tecmalta.org/tft105.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8MJ66ldqkw (video)
And, as the Wikipedia article that you provided a link to, but didn’t directly cite, states:
“There are approximately 230 Greek manuscripts available for the reconstructing of the original reading of Revelation. Major texts used are: the uncial scripts Codex Sinaiticus (4th century), Codex Alexandrinus (5th century), and Codex Ephraemi (5th century); the papyri, especially that of p47 (3rd century); the minuscules (8th to 10th century); the church father quotations (2nd to 5th centuries); and the Greek commentary on Revelation by Andreas (6th century).”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Revelation#Text_reconstruction
So, yes, Mr. Meikle we DO know what words John used with a very high degree of certainty – there’s simply no mystery here! And as stated clearly in my last post:
“Fact: Bible translators diligently strive to translate John’s words from Koine Greek into the closest, most accurate English equivalent taking care not to add to to take away from those words.
Fact: The words that Joseph Smith changed in the JST version of the Book of Revelation are NOT the closest, most accurate English equivalents of John’s words as they appear in the source manuscripts. Further, they’re even different than John’s translated words from the 1769 edition of the King James Bible that Joseph Smith was “translating”[1] from.
Fact: In several places Joseph Smith also ADDED words that do not appear in either the original language source manuscripts or the 1769 King James Bible that Smith was “translating” from. These words were simply ADDED by Smith – period.”
Simply put Mr. Meikle, all other Bible translations have full manuscript for their translations, there is NONE for Joseph Smith’s word additions, changes, verse order changes, etc.
CONCLUSION: The body of evidence clearly demonstrates that Joseph Smith added to and took from “the words of the prophecy of this book” in violation of Revelation 22:18.
There is simply no escaping this conclusion no matter how one tries to spin and obfuscate the facts as you’re trying so hard to do Mr. Meikle.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
“You make your argument by quoting wholesale from from Bill McKeever. The words quoted are his. They are the central premise to your argument.”
MY RESPONSE:
Fine, let me put it this way instead: Bill McKeever didn’t present his arguments in the circular fashion that your straw man presents either. His reasoning was linear just as mine is.
Again, referring to the Aristotelian model that I presented in my last post:
X = The Bible states plainly throughout there is only one eternal, and unchanging true God. This is the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as revealed in the Bible, has been and is known and worshipped by God’s covenant people throughout history.
Y = The Bible states in Deuteronomy 13 that if someone says, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them” the Bible states that they are a false prophet.
Z = Joseph Smith taught a multiplicity of gods (in Abraham 4 and elsewhere) and of a god who is an exalted man (The King Follett Discourse) – that is, a different god.
Therefore: According to the test given in Deuteronomy 13 Joseph Smith is a false prophet.
(I will now refer to this as “A”)
In other words:
If X = true
And if Y = true
And if Z = true
Then A = true
X+Y+Z=A
That’s linear, not circular.
Let’s break it down:
Proofs for X:
==============
“there is only one eternal, and unchanging true God. This is the true God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as revealed in the Bible”
Deuteronomy 4:35 ESV
To you it was shown, that you might know that the Lord is God; there is no other besides him.
Isaiah 44:6 ESV
Thus says the Lord, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the Lord of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
Deuteronomy 6:4 ESV
“Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Isaiah 43:10 ESV
“You are my witnesses,” declares the Lord, “and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.
Isaiah 45:5 ESV
I am the Lord, and there is no other, besides me there is no God; I equip you, though you do not know me,
Mark 12:29 ESV
Jesus answered, “The most important is, ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one.
Isaiah 41:4 ESV
Who has performed and done this, calling the generations from the beginning? I, the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he.
Psalm 86:10 ESV
For you are great and do wondrous things; you alone are God.
Malachi 3:6 ESV
For I the Lord do not change
Psalm 90:2 ESV
Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever you had formed the earth and the world, from everlasting to everlasting you are God.
Isaiah 40:28 ESV
Have you not known? Have you not heard? The Lord is the everlasting God, the Creator of the ends of the earth. He does not faint or grow weary; his understanding is unsearchable.
1 Timothy 1:17 ESV
To the King of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Isaiah 46:9-10 ESV
Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me.
Psalm 93:2 ESV
Your throne is established from of old; you are from everlasting.
Deuteronomy 33:27 ESV
The eternal God is your dwelling place, and underneath are the everlasting arms.
1 Timothy 2:5 ESV
For there is one God
Proofs for Y:
==============
“The Bible states in Deuteronomy 13 that if someone says, “Let us go after other gods, which thou hast not known, and let us serve them” the Bible states that they are a false prophet.”
Seems straightforward enough doesn’t it? I cited directly from Deuteronomony 13:2 there. And summarized the entirety of Deuteromy 13:1-11 which can be found here: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/deut/13.1-11?lang=eng#primary
Proofs for Z:
==============
“Joseph Smith taught a multiplicity of gods’
Here’s an excerpt from The Pearl of Great Price, Book of Abraham Chapter 4
1 And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth.
2 And the earth, after it was formed, was empty and desolate, because they had not formed anything but the earth; and darkness reigned upon the face of the deep, and the Spirit of the Gods was brooding upon the face of the waters.
3 And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light.
4 And they (the Gods) comprehended the light, for it was bright; and they divided the light, or caused it to be divided, from the darkness.
(see http://www.lds.org/scriptures/pgp/abr/4?lang=eng )
From “The King Follett Sermon”; Ensign, May 1971, p.13
“A Council of the Gods. In the beginning, the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted a plan to create the world and people it.”
— Joseph Smith
(see https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng )
From History of the Church 6:474
“I will preach on the plurality of Gods… I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”
— Joseph Smith
(see https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx )
History of the Church 6:476
“The heads of the Gods appointed one God for us…”
— Joseph Smith
(see https://byustudies.byu.edu/hc/hcpgs/hc.aspx )
“… and of a god who is an exalted man (The King Follett Discourse) – that is, a different god.”
“The King Follett Sermon”; Ensign, May 1971, p.13
“Here, then, is eternal life to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.”
— Joseph Smith
(see https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng )
So we see from the proofs that:
X = true
Y = true
Z = true
Therefore, A = true
@Ted Meikle wrote:
In your response you said: “So, my ‘authority’ is God’s Word, the Bible.’”
In this response you unearth one of the tragedies of historic Christianity—the shutting of the door to God’s continued revelation of His word (which, in turn, opens the door to misinterpretations of the Bible).
MY RESPONSE:
Thank you for demonstrating your ignorance of mainstream Christianity and one of the weak arguments that Mormons consistently make against Christianity.
Mainstream Christianity hasn’t shut “the door to God’s continued revelation of His word”. Rather, we – like God’s Covenant People throughout history, and in accordance with what God has revealed in scripture (Deuteronomy 13 being one of many such passages) – insist that new revelation be consistent and integrated with what God has already revealed about Himself. “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)
This isn’t some kind of spin for the sake of argument it’s a fact. There are new revelations coming out of mainstream Christian churches all the time in different forms. However, they are always held up to the plumbline of scripture and if they aren’t consistent and integrated with what God has already revealed about Himself then they’re rejected.
If you doubt me, and would like to see a rather dramatic example, then I recommend you to go visit Mormonism’s distant cousins, Pentecostal Christians[1] and see it for yourself. They are non-cessationist; they practice an overt form of continued revelation like Latter-day Saints; and some of them believe in both living prophets and apostles – sound familiar? That’s right Mr. Meikle, Mormons are just 19th Century Pentecostals gone bad!
Non-Pentecostal churches also believe in and practice continued revelation but in a more subdued, limited fashion than Pentecostals do. However, most non-Pentecostal churches are cessationist. It has been my experience that Mormons tend to be ignorant of non-cessationist Pentecostal Christians and wrongfully assume that ALL mainstream Christian churches are cessationist. This certainly seems to be true in your case.
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cessationism_versus_Continuationism )
That aside, and regardless, the reason WHY mainstream Christians – be they cessationist or not – reject Joseph Smith and Mormonism ISN’T because we reject continuing revelation. Rather, when plumblined to what has already revealed about Himself in the Bible, what Joseph Smith taught was both inconsistent and disintegrated from God’s word. Therefore, both Joseph Smith and Mormonism have very rightly been rejected as a different religion worshiping a different god and preaching a different gospel throughout history. For validation of this I would refer you to my article, “If Mormonism Isn’t Christian Then What Is It?” which says:
“as respected Religious Journalists, Richard and Joan Ostling note, “…it is surely wrong to see Mormonism as a Christian derivative in the way that Christianity is a Jewish derivative, because the LDS faith is in radical discontinuity with historic Christianity.”[13] And expanding on the Ostlings, the late Catholic Scholar, Richard John Neuhaus clarified stating that: “…Mormonism is inexplicable apart from Christianity and the peculiar permutations of Protestant Christianity in nineteenth-century America. It may in this sense be viewed as a Christian derivative. It might be called a Christian heresy, except heresy is typically a deviation within the story of the Great Tradition that Mormonism rejects tout court.”[14]
Continuing, Neuhaus goes on to explain:
“For missionary and public relations purposes, the LDS may present Mormonism as an ‘add-on,’ a kind of Christianity-plus, but that is not the official narrative and doctrine.
A closer parallel might be with Islam. Islam is a derivative of Judaism, and Christianity. Like Joseph Smith, Muhammad in the seventh century claimed new revelations and produced in the Quran a ‘corrected’ version of the Jewish and Christian scriptures, presumably by divine dictation. Few dispute that Islam is a new and another religion, and Muslims do not claim to be Christian, although they profess a deep devotion to Jesus. Like Joseph Smith and his followers, they do claim to be the true children of Abraham. Christians in dialogue with Islam understand it to be an interreligious, not an ecumenical, dialogue. Ecumenical dialogue is dialogue between Christians. Dialogue with Mormons who represent official LDS teaching is interreligious dialogue.”[15]”
@Ted Meikle wrote:
Ironically, the concept of sola scriptura is non-Biblical.
MY RESPONSE:
Rabbit trail! Have fun chasing that off-topic rabbit, I’m not going.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
Your argument is that Joseph’s teachings are inconsistent with the Bible’s descriptions of the nature of God. They are not.
MY RESPONSE:
I have provided evidence from Biblical and Mormon sources that discredits your objection – see above. The evidence isn’t on your side here Mr. Meikle.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
They are inconsistent with the traditional Christian interpretation of what the Bible says about the nature of God, as primarily established negotiations of a council of theologians over 300 years after Christ died.
MY RESPONSE:
The Bible passages that I cited showing that Joseph Smith taught a different god than the God revealed in the Bible were overwhelmly from the Old Testament with just a very few exceptions. Creeds and councils have nothing to do with this – this is another rabbit trail argument.
Joseph Smith couldn’t even get the most basic tenet of Judaism, let alone Christianity right – that is, Monotheism. If Joseph Smith had shown up in ancient Israel and given the King Follett Discourse to a bunch of normative Jews he would have been stoned in accordance with Deuteronomy 13:8-11 which says:
Deuteronomy 13
8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.
11 And all Israel shall hear, and fear, and shall do no more any such wickedness as this is among you.
(see https://www.lds.org/scriptures/ot/deut/13.7-11?lang=eng#7 )
@Ted Meikle
Peace. Sorry if I have been too disputatious.
MY RESPONSE:
Well if my Google is working properly I see that you’re a Utah based attorney. Therefore, I would be even more surprised if you weren’t “too disputatious” since you do it for a living!
(I work for a law firm and one of my best friends is an attorney so I love taking cheap shots at you guys whenever I can. Please forgive me!)
;-)
[1] And if you have any doubts about the fact that Mormons are nothing more than Pentecostals gone bad then I would refer you to the following articles written by some guy named Anson:
“Mormons: Pentecostals Gone Bad”
http://beggarsbread.org/2012/09/09/mormons-pentecostals-gone-bad/
“Mormons: Pentecostals Gone Bad (The Sequel)”
http://beggarsbread.org/2012/09/11/mormons-pentecostals-gone-bad-the-sequel/
As well as this classic John Farkas article:
“Speaking In Tongues And The Mormon Church”
http://beggarsbread.org/2012/09/23/speaking-in-tongues-and-the-mormon-church/
BTW, in the interests of full disclosure, I am a Charismatic Presbyterian Christian so some of the branches of my spiritual family tree are Pentecostal.
[13] Richard Ostling and Joan K. Ostling, “Mormon America”, p. 324
[14] Richard John Neuhaus, “Is Mormonism Christian? A Respected Advocate for Interreligious Cooperation Responds”; “First Things”, March 2000
[15] Ibid
Fred, I am not going to proceed with this discussion. There is too much animus.
If you understood what Jesus said about being one, you might better understand the nature of God, and see why all those verses you cited are totally consistent with my understanding of God.
Frankly Mr. Meikle, I’m surprised at this.
I don’t see how presenting countering arguments and evidence to a debating opponent’s arguments and evidence is “animus”.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
If you understood what Jesus said about being one, you might better understand the nature of God…
MY RESPONSE:
Well since you seem to be implying that I’m ignorant of God’s nature despite my many years of study, prayer, walking with, worshiping, and serving Him. So perhaps you should enlighten me instead of leaving me in ignorant darkness. But to your point, Jesus was quite clear “about being one”: He stated plainly that He is God eternal:
“Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.”
— John 8:58 KJV
The Bible is also quite clear that in regard to “being one” the Holy Spirit is also God. In fact, there are so passage on this that I’ll have to refer you to this article so you can read them for yourself:
“Verses showing identity, ministry, and personhood of the Holy Spirit” by Matt Slick
http://carm.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/verses-showing-identity-ministry-and-personhood-holy-spirit
And, of course the Bible is clear from cover-to-cover that regard to “being one” God the Father is also God.
So, to review:
Foundation One:…………………………………………………Monotheism: There Is Only One God.
Foundation Two:………………………………………………………There Are Three Divine Persons.
Foundation Three:……………………….………………The Persons Are Co-Equal and Co-Eternal.
(from “Loving the Trinity” by James White)
So how can all three co-equal, co-eternal persons all be “one God” without falling into polytheism. The answer is the doctrine of the Trinity. That too is a subject so vast and broad in the Bible that I must defer to another Matt Slick article;
“God as a Trinity” by Matt Slick
http://carm.org/cut-trinity
There is more on this later in this post.[1]
@Ted Meikle wrote:
…, and see why all those verses you cited are totally consistent with my understanding of God.
MY RESPONSE:
Never-the-less, and respectfully, Mr. Meikle, I’m really not too interested in what individual Mormons believe – which I have found is all over the map – as much as I’m interested in what the LdS Church says that they’re supposed to believe. And that is:
“GODHEAD
The Church’s first article of faith states, “We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.” These three beings make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.
The Mormon view of the members of the Godhead corresponds in a number of ways with the views of others in the Christian world, but with significant differences. Latter-day Saints pray to God the Father in the name of Jesus Christ. They acknowledge the Father as the ultimate object of their worship, the Son as Lord and Redeemer, and the Holy Spirit as the messenger and revealer of the Father and the Son. But where Latter-day Saints differ from other Christian religions is in their belief that God and Jesus Christ are glorified, physical beings and that each member of the Godhead is a separate being.
Additional Information
The true doctrine of the Godhead was lost in the apostasy that followed the Savior’s mortal ministry and the deaths of His Apostles. This doctrine began to be restored when 14-year-old Joseph Smith received his First Vision (see Joseph Smith—History 1:17). From the Prophet’s account of the First Vision and from his other teachings, we know that the members of the Godhead are three separate beings. The Father and the Son have tangible bodies of flesh and bones, and the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit (see D&C 130:22).
Although the members of the Godhead are distinct beings with distinct roles, they are one in purpose and doctrine. They are perfectly united in bringing to pass Heavenly Father’s divine plan of salvation.”
(source = https://www.lds.org/topics/godhead?lang=eng&query=godhead )
In other words, Mr. Meikle, the Mormon godhead consists of three gods – that’s polytheism, or more, specifically it’s henotheism since Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are subordinate gods to God the Father.
The Trinitarian God in a nutshell is one eternal Being consisting of three co-eternal, co-equal persons: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.
This one, triune God is implied in the most basic confession of the Judeo-Christian faith which says:
“Hear, O Israel! The LORD is our God — the LORD alone.”
— Deuteronomy 6:4
Or transliterated:
In English: “hear-you Israel Yahweh Elohim-of·us Yahweh one”
In Hebrew: “shmo ishral ieue alei·nu ieue achd”
And the last word “achd” (aka “echad”) means “united one”.
(see http://scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/deu6.pdf )
Now ironically, Trinitarianism was taught and the triune God worshiped in Mormon, as evidenced by the Trinitarianism in the Book of Mormon – which we were told by Joseph Smith, and is still affirmed by modern Mormons, contains the fulness of the gospel:
Mormon 7:7
And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.
2 Nephi 2:14
And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God [notice: singular not plural], and he hath created all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.
2 Nephi 31:21
And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.
3 Nephi 11:27
And after this manner shall ye baptize in my name; for behold, verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one.
Jacob 4:9
For behold, by the power of his word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God [again, notice: singular not plural] being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the earth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?
Testimony of Three Witnesses
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people, unto whom this work shall come: That we, through the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, have seen the plates which contain this record, which is a record of the people of Nephi, and also of the Lamanites, their brethren, and also of the people of Jared, who came from the tower of which hath been spoken. And we also know that they have been translated by the gift and power of God, for his voice hath declared it unto us; wherefore we know of a surety that the work is true. And we also testify that we have seen the engravings which are upon the plates; and they have been shown unto us by the power of God, and not of man. And we declare with words of soberness, that an angel of God came down from heaven, and he brought and laid before our eyes, that we beheld and saw the plates, and the engravings thereon; and we know that it is by the grace of God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, that we beheld and bear record that these things are true. And it is marvelous in our eyes. Nevertheless, the voice of the Lord commanded us that we should bear record of it; wherefore, to be obedient unto the commandments of God, we bear testimony of these things. And we know that if we are faithful in Christ, we shall rid our garments of the blood of all men, and be found spotless before the judgment-seat of Christ, and shall dwell with him eternally in the heavens. And the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.
OLIVER COWDERY
DAVID WHITMER
MARTIN HARRIS
And you can refer to my article “The Book of Mormon v. Mormon Doctrine” (http://beggarsbread.org/2014/07/26/the-book-of-mormon-v-mormon-doctrine) for proof of one of the many Biblically orthodox doctrines that Mormonism held to that it has now, tragically, abandoned. As Latter-day Saint scholar Thomas G. Alexander explains:
“Much of the doctrine that early investigators found in Mormonism was similar to contemporary Protestant churches.”
— Thomas G. Alexander, “The Reconstruction of Mormon Doctrine: From Joseph Smith to Progressive Theology”Sunstone 5:4 (July-August 1980); https://www.sunstonemagazine.com/pdf/115-6-15-29.pdf
It is my hope and prayer that the LdS Church and members like yourself will eventually abandon the blasphemies and heresies that were introduced to Mormonism by Joseph Smith and his successors after 1835. Until then I will continue to contend for the faith with Mormons as was modeled by both Christ and the Apostles in regard to those who had fallen into false doctrines and practices:
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly CONTEND for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
— Jude 1:3 (KJV)
“…we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God WITH MUCH CONTENTION.
For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:
But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.”
— I Thessalonians 2:2-4 (KJV)
And if you choose to see that most Biblical of practices as “animus” then so be it.
God bless you and your household Mr. Meikle and thank you for the most stimulating discussion.
[1] I would also recommend the following resources for good explanations of and lectures on the doctrine of the Trinity:
“A Brief Definition of the Trinity” by James White
http://vintage.aomin.org/trinitydef.html
“The Forgotten Trinity” by James White
“Loving the Trinity” by James White
http://www.equip.org/PDF/DT250.pdf
@Fred Anson: “I don’t see how presenting countering arguments and evidence to a debating opponent’s arguments and evidence is ‘animus’.”
I am certainly accustomed to the give and take of countering arguments. However, I would like that discussion to be done in love, especially as we try to discuss God. Rightly or wrongly, in what you write I sense contention and pride a lot more than love and humility. If I cannot feel love in a conversation about God, I choose not to continue.
My final suggestion is that you need to truly seek to understand John 17.
Godspeed.
Thank you for that rather pointed and honest assessment Mr. Meikle. I’ve indulged you, now please indulge me while I give mine.
@Ted Meikle, wrote
I am certainly accustomed to the give and take of countering arguments.
MY RESPONSE;
Given your occupation I have no doubt that’s true. However, I would ask the readers – our “jury” if you will – to consider this thread from beginning. Yes, you have offered countering arguments but no countering evidence. Rather, in the place of evidence you have attempted to:
I. Impugn the credibility of the author by claiming that his arguments were “circular” when they clearly weren’t.
II. Failing at that you then attempted to impugn the credibility of your debating opponent by:
1) Attempting to undermine his evidence rather than offering countering evidence in return (“The Joseph Smith Translation is a commentary not a translation” [paraphrasing and summarizing])
2) Questioning his authority to speak (“from whence is your authority to speak for God in telling me that Joseph is not God’s prophet?” [direct quote])
3) Twisting his words (and the words of his sources) and putting words in his mouth – rather than quoting him directly and accurately – in an attempt to create strawman arguments. (many examples could be cited here)
4) Engaging in attempts of off-topic dodging and deflecting (“the concept of sola scriptura is non-Biblical.”; “If you are interested in part of what I believe about the nature of my Savior and my Heavenly Father, you could take a look at (link to personal website).”
5) And, finally, last but not least engaging in subtle (but still rather obvious) ad-hominem arguments (“I am not going to proceed with this discussion. There is too much animus.”, “If you understood what Jesus said…”)
In fact, when taken as a whole, your arguments from start to finish have been heavy with ad-hominems (subtle ad-hominems, sly ad-hominem, but ad-hominems none-the-less).
Taken in total Mr. Meikle, I would suggest that not only have you failed to make your case, due to the lack of credible, verifiable evidence you have lost it.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
However, I would like that discussion to be done in love, especially as we try to discuss God.
MY RESPONSE:
Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t realize that you were the great judge over whether something is “done in love” or not! So you can see into men’s heart now? Golly, I didn’t know – I wish I had!
Yes, that was sarcastic but, I think, deserved sarcasm. Golly Mr. Meikle, I sure hope you don’t play the “you’re prideful” card too – if you do, I will simply say, “Kettle black”.
Respectfully and seriously sir, that was a very silly thing for you to say. Do you really think that the reason why I first invested LITERALLY hours of time first writing the article and then then yet more hours trying to reason with Mormons because I’m not concerned about their eternal fate? If love isn’t the motive then what is it? If I and my Christian colleagues didn’t care about and love Mormons we would just say nothing and let them perish in their sin wouldn’t we?
Please, that said, consider this Mr. Meikle: There are Mormon Missionaries out there right now having good, ongoing, sometimes even heated, discussions with investigators. It’s a pity that they’re out not doing what they do “in love” isn’t it?
Well, Mr. Meikle, we’re doing nothing more or less than Mormon Missionaries do. More on this later.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
Rightly or wrongly, in what you write I sense contention…
MY RESPONSE:
Oh absolutely! No question about it! Guilty as charged!
However, and with all due respect to the Mormon Jesus,[1] contention isn’t of the devil it is both Biblical and what was modeled by Christ and the Apostles in the Bible (Q: What exactly what was Jesus doing in the Temple with the Pharisees and Sadducees? A: Contending with them). The Book of Mormon is not absolutely WRONG on this point Joseph Smith is putting word into God’s mouth. We know this because 3 Nephi 11:29 contradicts what the Bible says. So once again, since you seem to have missed it the first time:
“Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it was needful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly CONTEND for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints.”
— Jude 1:3 (JST)
“…we were bold in our God to speak unto you the gospel of God WITH MUCH CONTENTION.
For our exhortation was not of deceit, nor of uncleanness, nor in guile:
But as we were allowed of God to be put in trust with the gospel, even so we speak; not as pleasing men, but God, which trieth our hearts.”
— I Thessalonians 2:2-4 (JST)
@Teb Meikle
…and pride.
MY RESPONSE:
And there it is!
Kettle black Mr. Meikle, kettle black.
I see absolutely no difference in the way that I write and argue my points and the way you do – except, as previously noted, I respond from evidence to evidence, you don’t. So by attempting to incriminate me you have in fact incriminated yourself too sir. And if you can’t see this then I pity you for there is most assuredly a beam in your eye.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
… a lot more than love and humility.
MY RESPONSE:
This coming from the man who opened his “humble, loving” arguments like this: “Each of your “better” arguments suffers from the logical fallacy of circular reasoning”
And it didn’t get any better from there. Yep, I can feel the love and humility in everything you write Mr. Meikle!
(NOT!)
Yes, I know more sarcasm, but my goodness Mr. Meikle how can you write this stuff with a straight face?
Kettle black Mr. Meikle, kettle black.
@Ted Meikle wrote:
If I cannot feel love in a conversation about God, I choose not to continue.
MY RESPONSE:
Well since, again, challenging another person’s belief system and pointing out it’s errors relative to what scripture says isn’t loving then, again, the LdS Church needs to recall all those pride and hate-filled contentious Mormon Missionaries from the field and send them home doesn’t it?
@Ted Meikle
My final suggestion is that you need to truly seek to understand John 17.
MY RESPONSE:
Well Mr. Meikle, John 17 (which the reader can find here by using this link https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/john/17?lang=eng ) is about Christin unity.
And since Mormons have gone after other gods, which God’s covenant people haven’t known, and since Mormons serve them; and since Mormons preach another Jesus and another gospel (see 2 Corinthians 11:4) they aren’t Christians, they’re idol worshipers and false brethren (2 Corinthians 11:26 and Galatians 2:4)
Therefore, John 17 doesn’t apply to Mormons – I understand that quite well. Rather 2 Corinthians 6:14 does:
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?”
Thank you.
[1] For those who don’t know, Joseph Smith claims that the Book of Mormon’s Jesus Christ said:
“For verily, verily I say unto you, he that hath the spirit of contention is not of me, but is of the devil, who is the father of contention, and he stirreth up the hearts of men to contend with anger, one with another.”
(3 Nephi 11:29)