When deciding how to go about reviewing this month’s Ensign magazine, I wasn’t sure whether to try to summarise the whole publication or to focus on one particular article. As I scanned the article titles, one stood out to me: “Dear are the sheep that have wandered” by James Faust, who was a member of the first presidency. This title immediately grabbed my attention since I would probably be defined by most of the magazine’s intended readership as a ‘sheep that has wandered’. I intend to respond to Faust’s comments by highlighting what appear to me to be cultural insights into the LDS mentality, and also by providing a biblical response to LDS doctrine.

I have to say that the article begins with many examples of highly charged and emotive language. These phrases permeate the whole article too. I am referring to words such as: “hope and solace to heartbroken parents”, “despaired”, “follow the path of evil and destruction” and “deep anguish”. It is an insight into the LDS way of thinking that Faust expects that parents will feel these things and hold these views about non-practising or non-believing LDS offspring. This reveals the stigma attached to all people who become ‘inactive’ and this stigma is shared by the families of such people.

Faust then goes on to reassure such parents that if they have followed the teachings of the church in bringing up their children to repent and have faith in Jesus, to be baptised and receive the gift of the Holy Ghost then they have done their part. I believe that Faust is again trying to counter some of the cultural norms of Mormonism in his opening words when he says that, “successful parents are those who have sacrificed and struggled to do the best they can in their own family circumstances.” (italics mine).

It is interesting to me that he states that sacrifice and struggle can be the qualities of successful parents since the implication in a lot of LDS teaching is that success is simply the result of keeping the rules. Culturally, successful LDS parents are those that get their (often numerous!) children off on their missions and then married in the temple soon after their return. These married offspring in time will then repeat the process. With the huge emphasis on families in LDS belief and practice, the pressure for their offspring to turn out in the LDS mould must be huge for parents.

The unwritten word is sometimes just as, if not more, powerful than the written one. An example of this can be seen a little further on when James Faust says, “Children who are obedient and responsible bring to their parents unending pride and satisfaction.” So what do those ‘sheep that have wandered’ bring? Unending shame and disappointment could well be the implication. A massive guilt trip to the many LDS offspring who can’t accept the church’s teachings; just look at how you’ve made your parents feel. And not just that, the implication is that your parents now look like failures in front of their peers. The fact that Faust felt the need to correct that mentality (as I stated in the previous paragraph) is indicative that such an attitude exists in the LDS church. I would also claim to know of it through personal experience.

Faust then poses the question, ‘Is there hope?’ Other LDS leaders have spoken on this in grave terms. Consider the words of Ezra Taft Benson: “One who rationalizes that he or she has a testimony of Jesus Christ but cannot accept direction and counsel from the leadership of His church is in a fundamentally unsound position and is in jeopardy of losing exaltation.” And the words of Harold B. Lee: “…those who criticize the leaders of this Church are showing signs of a spiritual sickness which, unless curbed, will bring about eventually spiritual death. … I have watched over the years, and I have read of the history of many of those who fell away from this Church, and I want to bear testimony that no apostate who ever left this Church ever prospered as an influence in his community thereafter.” (In Conference Report, Oct. 1947, p. 67.) Finally, Brigham Young can always be relied upon to tell it like it is: “You cannot destroy the appointment of a prophet of God, but you can cut the thread that binds you to the prophet of God and sink yourselves to hell.” For Faust to be considering that there may even be the possibility of hope, given these quotes – particularly Young’s – strikes me as rather surprising.

Yet Faust makes the case that LDS parents of ‘sheep that have wandered’ should have cause to hope. In presenting his case, he quotes Orson F. Whitney at length. “Though some of the sheep may wander, the eye of the shepherd is upon them, and sooner or later they will feel the tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them and drawing them back to the fold.” What a fascinating quote! Just prior to this, Faust had referred to the story of the prodigal son as an example of parental love. In that story, “… when he was yet a great way off, his father saw him, and had compassion, and ran, and fell on his neck, and kissed him.” (Luke 15:20) So when the prodigal son made the choice to return, the Father ran to him and hugged and kissed him, yet in Whitney’s view the sheep will return because they will feel the ‘tentacles of Divine Providence reaching out after them.’ I know which image I prefer!

Whitney’s view of how wayward sheep are to return continues in this unbiblical vein: “they will suffer for their sins”. Any Christian knows that Christ suffered for our sins. To suggest that Christian people will suffer for their sins is to be ignorant of Bible teaching. 1 Peter 3:18 – “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.” We are the unjust, He is the just. To claim, as Faust does, that the stray sheep must ‘pay their debt to justice’ is to miss the point of the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus entirely. It is also to miss a major part of the story of the prodigal son. In this, the prodigal son rightly acknowledges his total unworthiness, “Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.” So what is the Father’s response?

Does he say, “Yes you are quite right, you will live as the humblest of my servants, doing the most demeaning labour and living in squalor and discomfort until I see that you have suffered fully for what you have done to me.”? No, he says: “Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet.” Surely this, along with his running to greet the son and kissing him, tells us that he is welcomed back as a son, the robe and ring signifying his position in the household. The father responds with love towards the son before the son has even had a moment to speak, and when he does speak, it is to confess his sinfulness. The Father then responds instantly to demonstrate that he wants him back with him as his son. There is immediate love, forgiveness and acceptance. This is the teaching of Jesus, not the LDS version of the story.

Faust then goes on to explain that, after death it is possible to repent. “The dead who repent will be redeemed, through obedience to the ordinances of the house of God,  And after they have paid the penalty of their transgressions, and are washed clean, shall receive a reward according to their works, for they are heirs of salvation.” (D&C 138: 58-59) This contradicts the Bible, since Revelation tells us: “thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation and hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.” Revelation 5:9-10. (Italics added) We are not redeemed by the ‘ordinances of the house of God’ (i.e. LDS temples) but by the blood of Jesus.

It is interesting to note also here that God has made those whom he redeemed kings and priests. They were not made kings and priests by their own actions, but rather by God. It must also be pointed out that the idea of ‘the dead who repent’ does not fit with what we know about the next life as it described in the Bible: “it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment” Hebrews 9:27

Back to Faust: He tries to argue that a repentant ‘wayward’ child can be saved through repentance and Christ’s atonement, but that he / she must earn their exaltation. Firstly, it is important to say that there is no Biblical case to be made in favour of the LDS understanding of exaltation (i.e. progression through works that can eventually lead to godhood). Secondly, as shown above, the Bible points out that God redeems by the blood of Jesus and is also the one responsible for exalting us, for example, to be his ‘kings and priests’ as it states in Revelation.

Faust then says that ‘The question as to who will be exalted must be left to the Lord in His mercy’. Yet he has also just stated that it must be fully earned. Being granted something through mercy is in direct contradiction to earning that same thing. Stating that both are true as Faust does is not logical. LDS teaching is clear, “Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.” On reading this chapter of ‘Gospel Principles’, it is abundantly clear that exaltation is very much an ‘if… then…’ proposition, not something granted by God’s mercy.

We then have the suggestion that the ‘sealing cords of righteous parents’ could play an important role in the saving of wayward children. Is this an extra ‘carrot’ to keep those parents active and faithful church members? Possibly. It is certainly not what Jesus taught. “For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” Luke 12:52-53 Believing in Jesus is a choice, you either do or you don’t. No ‘sealing’ ordinances in temples can take away individual choice to accept or reject Jesus.

The article then moves on to some general points about good, strong parenting. One sentence stood out: “If we do not discipline our children, society may do it in a way that is not to our liking or our children’s.” A stark reminder of parental duty, but not a specific religious teaching, so nothing to agree or disagree with here.

Faust then warns that even temporary straying by parents may lead to children following that example. Again, more pressure on parents! Yet in the following paragraph, he advises children not to be too critical of parents who have been ‘less than they should have been.’ Once again there is that tone of criticism and not being ‘up to the mark’ that pervades an awful lot of the language used by Mormon leaders. Here we are back into the territory of the thinking in Mormon culture. The following sentence is clearly a reprimand to people who are judgemental of the parenting abilities of others: “It is very unfair and unkind to judge conscientious and faithful parents because some of their children rebel or stray from the teachings and love of their parents.” Faust clearly felt there was a need for the LDS faithful to be reminded / warned of this.

We then read more emotive, highly-charged language again here such as: “worthy, righteous parents who struggle and suffer with disobedient children,” and “When parents mourn for disobedient and wayward children…” Here, we are being told not to judge those good parents who have children who don’t want to be LDS, but please note the guilt-trip put on anyone who is brought up LDS but no longer wants to be LDS. I feel this keenly. There is a strong expectation that my own parents are expected to have struggled and suffered with me, their disobedient child and also to have mourned for me being disobedient and wayward. Mourned? If these are the words used by members of the first presidency, then I think we are now seeing what they really think. They agree with the words of Brigham Young quoted much earlier: “you can cut the thread that binds you to the prophet of God and sink yourselves to hell.”

I can’t help but be amused by this next sentence: “No one can say with any degree of certainty what their children will do under certain circumstances.” Really? Perhaps LDS members really do think that with enough time spent in primary, the young men’s or women’s program, missionary work, priesthood duties, seminary, Institute and temple rituals their children will have no power left to think for themselves?! Amazingly, some still do.

Towards the end of this article, we have one concrete example of someone who left the LDS faith, and perhaps unsurprisingly, it is a rather extreme example of someone whose life went off the rails due to drug use. This is a rather sinister ploy in my opinion. It serves to equate all ‘wandering’ from the LDS faith with the tragic waste that is a life controlled by drugs. How ridiculous. Most people who leave the LDS faith do so in order to have more control and choice over their own lives, not less. These people find that choices made freely are much more valued than choices made through fear of choosing the alternative. Also, thankfully, there a great many who leave the LDS faith because they have come to know who Jesus really is, rather than the reduced picture presented by the LDS church.

Typically perhaps, Faust ends with a quote from Jeremiah where Rachel is weeping for her children and is comforted that they may ‘come again from the land of the enemy’. However, no context is provided for this verse, so it misleads the reader into the suggestion that those who have rejected the LDS church could return to the fold and therefore back on the path to exaltation. Again, we know that those who leave the LDS church are viewed as lost and unable to be exalted, or as prophet Brigham Young explained, those who cut the thread that binds them to the prophet of God are sinking themselves to hell.

I feel the opportunity to write a response to James Faust’s article has given me the chance to explore some of the cultural attitudes in LDS thinking and also share a Biblical view on current LDS teaching regarding LDS ‘inactivity’ or apostasy. This was an article that resonated personally for me, so I look forward to reading any personal responses to what I have written.

Chapter 11, ‘I Seek Not Mine Own Will but the Will of the Father’, may seem a little bit ‘jarring’ in its location within the book coming as it is does after the important chapter of coming to the temples. The issues that are raised in the chapter are important to discuss however. It is one of those chapters that, unlike the previous chapter, involve detailed analysis of Lorenzo Snow’s theology to discern the LDS theology from the Christian theology. In our journey examining Snow’s thoughts on Jesus’ famous statement that is used as the title for his chapter, we shall focus on two distinctive Mormon ideas in the text. Firstly, we shall investigate the idea that it is possible to take a path where there will be no failure and secondly we shall investigate the difference between successful and faithful with God.

The first area we shall look at focuses on the very first section of Snow’s teaching in this chapter. The particular quotation that is important is ‘there is a course for every person to pursue in which there will be no failure’. This quotation needs to be understood in light of the reference from Doctrine and Covenants that comes shortly after the quotation:

‘If your eye be single to my glory, your whole bodies shall be filled with light, and there shall be no darkness in you, and that body which is filled with light comprehendeth all things. Therefore sanctify yourselves that your minds become single to God (D&C 88:67-68).

We must begin with the areas where Mormonism and Christianity agree. It would be unwise and improper to suggest that saying that ‘seeming failures’ cannot be successes in actuality in God. When we consider Peter, we can see that his massive failures in abandoning Jesus as well as his failure to understand Jesus’ messages were transformed by God into great wisdom and leadership for His purposes. Our greatest failures can be turned into great Godly successes. Where Snow begins to go into areas where Christianity must disagree is the reasoning behind why the LDS church of the 1890’s has not fallen into failure. Snow argues the church has avoided failure as they have ‘fixed upon the true principles of life, and have conformed to their duty’. The church has the Spirit ‘and have followed it. Hence there has been no failure’. This along with the quotation we have seen before, signals a progression from failure being redeemed by God to humanity being able to avoid failure by works, in affect humanity being free from sin through works and redeeming itself.

Now am I over exaggerating here? Am I reading far too much into what Snow is saying? I do not believe that I am. When Snow states that the church has avoided failure has come from ‘conforming to duty’, he states that the avoidance of failure in the sight of the Lord has come from the church’s action rather than the mercy and grace of Christ. This theology has been cut from the same cloth as the theology in chapter five where men can become gods by their works. Snow does say in this section that the ‘people generally have had the Spirit of the Lord, and have followed it’. That seems biblically orthodox doesn’t it? Well, it would again seem a bit bizarre to say that Peter hadn’t failed in his leadership of the church when he was caught in hypocrisy as he ate with Gentiles when James wasn’t around but refused in James’ presence. It would also be bizarre an absurd to say that Peter did not have the Spirit or that the Spirit abandoned him at that time. Peter’s failure in this regard came about by the sin that is in us all. Our lives are a constant wrestle with obeying the Spirit and giving into our sinful urges. There will always be sinful failure on an individual level and on the corporate level as we are all sinful until our purification in our resurrection at death. As such to argue that we can avoid failure in this life by works is not just theologically wrong, but folly.

Our next point of exploration is the difference between success and faithfulness when it comes to God. The sentence that follows the quotation from Doctrine and Covenants we have previously discussed is as follows ‘That is the key by which a person can always be successful’. The quotations that follow, Philippians 3:14 and Doctrine and Covenants 84:38, make references to prizes, which are the reward for success. I do believe however that Snow has misappropriated the quotation from Philippians. The prize he is talking about is the resurrection from the dead that comes from a life with Jesus.

When we consider Philippians 3:13, Paul exhorts us to repent and leave our sins in the past and keep going through the trials, the pain and our own sinfulness towards our true prize, relationship with Christ in eternity. This sounds more like faithfulness rather than success. So what does the LDS church define ‘success’, the word Snow uses on page 150 as? The Bible Dictionary on the LDS website does not give us a definition under the term ‘success’ but this word is used in a couple of other definitions such as Maccabees and Jonah. In these definitions, the word ‘success’ is used in its classical sense, in that the aims that one set out with were achieved and that success was accredited to the person who ‘achieved’ the success.

So is Snow talking about ‘faithfulness’ or ‘success’? The answer to this can be found on page 150 when Snow begins to articulate on the will of God worked through our lives. In this section, Snow works through the lives of Moses and Jeremiah about how the will of the Father is worked through them despite their inadequacies.

Before this discussion however, Snow quotes John 5:19 and then proceeds to argue that if anything needs to be done that requires an ‘exertion’, we need to align our will with God’s. This is, of course, is perfectly Christian. Where it gets a little odd is when Snow argues that when we do this, it will always lead to success that we will eventually see, even if it takes a while for the success to flower. The truth of the matter is that when we align our wills, we do not do so for success. We do so because our creator God asks us to serve Him. He asks us to follow His will just like Jesus so that we can faithful to him.

The element of success that Snow introduces is a clear sign of the work-based salvation that is present in Snow’s thought as seen in chapter 5. It can be argued that the ‘success’ that Snow talks about is rooted within the trek west to the Salt Lake Basin and the overcoming of challenges to get to the Basin in the first place and the challenges that were involved in establishing settlements in the Basin. With this in mind, it could be argued that Snow is using his experiences in trying to articulate his thoughts and this could be conceivable if it weren’t for the other examples of work based salvation theology that have been present in the previous chapters. Snow’s theology, as shown by this example, is part of the foundation of Mormon soteriology (doctrine of salvation) which proclaims that humanity can work their way to the celestial kingdom to exaltation and godhood. Achieving this is what is considered success.

So in conclusion, what can we say about chapter eleven? We can say that, as with previous chapters, Snow is not unfamiliar with Christian theology and makes some points which are not out of step with Christian orthodoxy. What we can also see however is that Snow is still deeply rooted in the idea that humanity can be perfect and work their way to the celestial kingdom, in essence, you can work your way to heaven, something Christianity cannot accept.

Russ East founder and director of Utah Partnerships for Christ, our parent ministry is interviewed on this video by Earl Erskine, who is an ex Mormon Bishop.

Russ has a fascinating story of going from Mormonism to Christ, and now runs a great ministry hosting youth mission trips in Utah, as well as also running AM820 a Christian Radio station in Utah, this video is well worth a watch.

It was October 2010 and I was sat in the first session of the Mormon General Conference. The President of the Church Thomas Monson gave the opening talk and announced the locations of where some temples were to be built. The looks of awe and amazement that people in the audience gave each other, and the loud gasps you could hear right across the 21.000 people there really amazed me.

This is an issue of massive significance to Mormons. The temple is the holiest place you can be in on earth, its the place where saving ordnances are carried out for dead people and for yourself, only worthy Mormons who have lived out the Mormon gospel faithfully and fully, and been a member for at least a year can go in. This review will draw from the chapter here quite heavily, but will also be a glimpse of the Mormon temples, and what the Bible says about them as a whole.

Here is a video put together by the Mormon Church, talking about the significance of the temple.  This is short and worth a watch just to see this from the Mormon Perspective.

In p.140 of the Lorenzo Snow manual we see this:

In temples we learn of the marvelous blessings God has prepared for the faithful.
The prospects that God has opened up to our view are wonderful and grand; the imagination cannot conceive of them. Come into the Temples and we will show you. Many of you, I presume, have been there, and have heard the marvelous things that God has prepared for those that love Him and continue faithful to the end. . . .
. . . He has prepared everything for the Latter-day Saints that they could possibly wish or imagine in order to effect their complete happiness throughout the vast eternities.7 [See suggestion 2 on pages 144–45.]

In the Mormon Temple the main functions it carries out are as follows.

• Baptisms for the Dead
• The Endowment ceremony, both for the living and the dead.
• Families being sealed together for eternity
• Wedding sealings, both for the living and the dead.

(Much less talked about is the 2nd anointing ceremony. In this ceremony which an Apostle  presides over, someone can have their calling and election made sure, I believe this means they are then guaranteed celestial glory, provided they remain faithful. I will not be going further into that here, but you can catch an interview with someone who went through that and has since left the LDS Church here.)

I want to spend some time here looking at the Baptisms for the dead, and the endowment ceremony, looking at whether they are really a part of the Biblical gospel, and necessary in order that we might spend get eternal life. The rest of this post will focus on the Baptism for the dead doctrine and another post will follow soon on the endowment.

The belief in Baptism for the dead in the Mormon Church is based upon their belief that when all people die, they go to the Spirit world, awaiting final judgement. Those that lived the gospel of Christ faithfully will go to paradise. We see this in Doctrine and Covenants (D&C) 138:11-12

 11 As I ^apondered over these things which are ^bwritten, the ^ceyesof my ^dunderstanding were opened, and the Spirit of the Lord^erested upon me, and I saw the hosts of the ^fdead, both small and great.

 12 And there were gathered together in one place an innumerable company of the spirits of the ^ajust, who had been ^bfaithful in the^ctestimony of Jesus while they lived in mortality;

However those that did not live faithfully will go to Spirit Prison, the same D&C chapter refers to those people being preached to by Christ.

 7 “For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 8 “By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in ^aprison;

This is the LDS interpretation of what we see in 1 Peter 3:18, they also believe that there will be missionaries who have died faithfully who will go to this prison to preach the gospel to the people there. However ultimately for people to be released from this prison someone must be baptised for them in this life. This is massively significant to the Mormon movement and its members.

Joseph Smith, founder of Mormonism said:

“The greatest responsibility in this world that God has placed upon us is to seek after our dead” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 356).

This is why there is so much excitement among Mormons when they hear of new temples being built, as they see more temples as more saving ordnances for the alive but mostly for the dead. We see this in the Lorenzo Snow Chapter we are looking at. (p.143)

We desire anxiously that the brethren and sisters should not neglect this important work. Do you know what will be the main labor during the thousand years of rest [the Millennium]? It will be that which we are trying to urge the Latter-day Saints to perform at the present time. Temples will be built all over this land, and the brethren and sisters will go into them and perhaps work day and night in order to hasten the work and accomplish the labors necessary before the Son of Man can present His kingdom to His Father. This work has got to be accomplished before the Son of Man can come and receive His kingdom to present it to His Father.13 [See suggestion 5 on page 145.]

You can see in the bolded part here that temples must be built and all of the necessary labours must be done before Jesus CAN come back. So the more temples are being built for Mormons this means the more the kingdom is advancing and that means that the end is getting all the more close. This is Mormon kingdom advancement.

I just want to spend some time looking at this issue:

Does Baptism for dead people have any effect on the eternity of dead people?

The Biblical basis that the Mormon Church uses for the Baptism for the dead doctrine is 1 Corinthians 15:29.

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

So while I believe that contextually, this verse is by no means teaching that Christians should carry out this act which I will show, this still leaves the issue of what does this mean?

Firstly I would ask you to read the full chapter of 1 Corinthians 15. For the sake of space I am not going to quote it all, but please pick up your Bible now and have it in front of you.

Ok, assuming you have done that lets have a look at the chapter.

We see in v1 that Paul is declaring the gospel which he preached (past tense) unto you, which you have received and stand in. So we see he is speaking to Christians, further supported by verse 2.

v3, we see Paul also received this gospel.

v4 to 11 are talking about Christ and Apostles.

v’s 12-18 are interesting as that says that some among the Christians (it says “you”) were saying there is no resurrection of the dead, he talks about the problem with this view. Such as in v18 those who had died in Christ would be perished, which is not the case.

in v19 we see that If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most miserable.

So Paul is saying that is there was no resurrection for the dead WE would be most miserable. We know from Philippians 1:21 that Paul was very much looking forward to dying and being with Christ so if there was no resurrection of the dead then this is a big deal.

We see in v20-22 the glorious truth that Christ is risen from the dead, and that while all died because of Adam then all live in Christ. We see in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that those that are in Christ are a new creation. Yet in Romans 3:23 ALL have sinned. So therefore in context we know that all without exception are in Adam, yet it is only those new creations that are in Christ, and therefore those are the ones that live.

v’s23-28 talk about the reign of Christ. Then we get to the verse in question. I will quote the two verses after too.

²⁹ Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead? ³⁰ And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? ³¹ I protest by your rejoicing which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die daily.

Paul suddenly asks the question what shall they do which are baptised  if the dead are not raised at all, why are they baptised for the dead? Paul has spend the entire chapter addressing the Christians as You and We then all of a sudden it goes from those to they. 

The question needs to be asked why the sudden shift? If Baptism for the dead is so important, and the end will not come until the work is complete why is Paul content leaving this work to someone else? Does not Paul endure ALL things for the sake of the elect? (2Timothy 2:10) Why then is he not engaging in this essential work too?

Why does he seem to assume that his readers are not carrying out this work? Why does he not say that if there is no resurrection when you baptise for the dead you are baptising in vain?

This is because he is referring to people that are not reading his letter. People who are not Christians. We see this cemented by v30 that says And why stand we in jeopardy every hour? 

We know from other parts of the letters to the Corinthian Churches that the Church was undergoing persecution.

1 Corinthians 4:12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:

2 Corinthians 4:8-9 We are troubled on every side, yet not distressed; we are perplexed, but not in despair; Persecuted, but not forsaken; cast down, but not destroyed;

So Paul is asking in v30, why would we stand in Jeopardy every hour IF THERE IS NO RESURRECTION??? 

Why are they baptising for the dead? And why are we standing in Jeopardy? If there is no resurrection (which there is), is the cry of Paul here. Ending with his protest bring fueled by the rejoicing of YOU the Christians.

Who then are the they referred to in v29? In honesty I am not sure, Matthew 22:23 refers to the Sadducee’s as not believing in the resurrection, however I am not sure. Despite looking at this text alone we see elsewhere in the Bible that there are no second chances for salvation after death.

Hebrews 9:27 says: And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: 

2 Corinthians 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

Everything in the New Testament with regards to salvation is geared towards people responding to Christ here and now.

Romans 10:9-10  Because, if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

There are no second chances, today is the day of Salvation. For more on this check out an excellent article on the Got Questions site here.

In another post soon I will be looking at the Endowment Ceremony in the Temple, in the mean time, I welcome your comments.

Hey all, some of you may have noticed me linking to Russ Bale’s  interview by Suzanne Witt the other day on why he reaches out to Mormons.

Yesterday I was also interviewed by Suzanne on why I do this, please see that interview above. I thought this would be helpful as this is a question I am often asked, and so often I think Mormons assume its out of some hatred on my part towards Mormons, of even the Mormon Church.

Please give this interview a listen and I hope you will see this is not the case. You may not agree with my conclusions, but I hope in the least you will see that my motivation is not in anyway a negative thing.

As ever I am open and looking forward to your comments.

Comparisons are made with other churches that also practiced discrimination. They changed their stance on these issues and so has the Mormon Church. Not an unreasonable argument, we are meant to conclude. But the Mormon Church cannot reasonably make that defence, the comparison doesn’t bear scrutiny.

Fallen Man, Risen Lord, Sure Hope

Christian churches are led by fallible people, depending on centuries of scholarship and a developing theology for understanding and insight. We are led, we would insist, by the Spirit but flawed, we would confess, by the fallen nature of leaders and congregation alike.

That is why we go to great lengths to maintain biblical fundamentals while “allowing” disagreement on secondary issues. We recognise the wisdom of St Augustine who said, “In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity.”

Our standing before God does not depend on our capacity to grasp an exhaustive theology but on our faith in Christ and his simple message of salvation (John 5: 24-25) We confess our sin, run to the cross and throw ourselves on God’s generous mercy (Romans 3; Acts 2:21) Only this way can fallen man, trusting in a risen Lord, have a sure hope.

That said, we are not saved into ignorance but need to grow in the things of God (Acts 2:42-47) That growing happens across cultures, generations and ages and is informed by scholarship that produces better Bible translations and commentary, debate and disagreement that challenge preconceptions, insight and inspiration that shine light into blind corners and experience that humbles us before the towering word of God. For Mormons this is evidence of apostasy.

After the death of Jesus Christ, they claim, wicked people persecuted the Apostles and killed them. Without Apostles, over time the doctrines were corrupted…Without revelation and priesthood authority, people relied on human wisdom to interpret the scriptures (scholarship, debate, disagreement)…False ideas were taught as truth…The doctrines…became distorted or forgotten. This eventually led to the emergence of many churches – apostasy.

The message of Mormonism centres on “living prophets” (insight, inspiration). John Taylor, third Mormon president, wrote, “the principle of present revelation…is the very foundation of our religion” (Journal of Discourses, p.371). Elder Joseph W. McMurrin was one of the First Seven Presidents of the First Council of the Seventy from Oct.5 1897. In a General Conference address in April 1902 he said:

“A Prophet of God stands in the midst of the people now, clothed upon with every gift, key, power, and authority, that was given to the Prophet Joseph Smith, and that same inspiration, that same power to penetrate the future, to comprehend the purposes of the Almighty, is with the Priesthood that is in our midst today.”

So, how did Mormonism go from being led by men clothed upon with every gift, key, power, and authority, who can penetrate the future and comprehend the purposes of the Almighty to, “Holy Moroni! What just happened?”

Sack the Seers, Summon the Scholars

Mormons reject the orthodox churches with their scholars, theologies, creeds and denominations and follow prophets, seers and revelators; one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph.4:5). Books are well and good, scholarship admirable but the sure word of prophecy gives us “the mind of Christ.” ( 1Cor. 2:16) “Surely, the LORD will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.” (Amos 3:7 KJV)

But what do you do when those prophets prove less than insightful and inspired? When “modern prophets” can’t explain the “essentials” around which Mormons are to unite? When comprehension, inspiration and penetrating insight fail where do you turn?

1981

The Mormon Church has helpfully published an online comparison of the differences between the 1981 and 2013 editions of the Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price. In the Introduction to the 1981 edition we are told:

“The Doctrine and Covenants is a collection of divine revelations and inspired declarations given for the establishment and regulation of the kingdom of God on the earth in the last days…In the revelations, the doctrines of the gospel are set forth with explanations about such fundamental matters as the nature of the Godhead, the origin of man, the reality of Satan, the purpose of mortality, the necessity for obedience, the need for repentance, the workings of the Holy Spirit, the ordinances and performances that pertain to salvation, the destiny of the earth, the future conditions of man after the Resurrection and the Judgment, the eternity of the marriage relationship, and the eternal nature of the family.

Concerning this publication the elders of the church gave solemn testimony that the Lord had borne record to their souls of the truth of the revelations.” (Emphasis added)

Notable is the unequivocal endorsement of these revelations as coming direct from God, having absolute and unqualified authority. They are divine and inspired in their nature, authoritative in their purpose, revelatory in regards doctrine, fundamental in their matter and comprehensive in their teaching; undiluted by the corruption of having passed through “profane hands,” a popular Mormon description of how we got the Bible.

Unlike the churches of apostate “Christendom”,  there is no speculation or disagreement, no recourse to scholars to explain, no equivocation; doctrine and praxis are plainly set forward as they come from the very mouth of God and pen of the prophet. This is the Mormonism of Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, John Taylor, Joseph F Smith, James E Talmage, Spencer W Kimball and Bruce R McConkie. This is the Mormonism with which I am familiar: reassuringly certain, declarative and dogmatic.

2013

Into this affirmative account these words were inserted for the 2013 edition. I include my own commentary in plain text and brackets:

The revelations were originally recorded by Joseph Smith’s scribes (like the Bible, they are now at least once removed from their source),  and Church members enthusiastically shared handwritten copies with each other  (like the Bible there were many early copies that may not have all agreed at every point) To create a more permanent record, scribes soon copied these revelations into manuscript record books  (like early Christian leaders they selected the best from a variety of copies),  which Church leaders used in preparing the revelations to be printed  (which selected copies were then published as the ‘authoritative’ version)

In other words, the Doctrine and Covenants was put together the same way Mormons think the Bible was. The difference is, we have thousands of part and full copies of early New Testament texts, which we can compare with our Bibles and which give us confidence in their faithfulness to the original. In a striking parallel with Islam, “early copies” of Joseph’s “revelations” have failed to come down to us and we are left only with what the church “officially” tells us belongs in the book. To continue:

Joseph and the early Saints viewed the revelations as they did the Church: living, dynamic, and subject to refinement with additional revelation  (opening the door for scholarship to define doctrine, bearing in mind the 2013 edition is the product of scholarship, not revelation) They also recognized that unintentional errors had likely occurred through the process of copying the revelations and preparing them for publication  (they have passed through corrupt hands) Thus, a Church conference asked Joseph Smith in 1831 to “correct those errors or mistakes which he may discover by the Holy Spirit…”

…The early Latter-day Saints prized the revelations and viewed them as messages from God  (note they are now only “viewed” as messages from God).  On one occasion in late 1831, several elders of the Church gave solemn testimony that the Lord had borne record to their souls of the truth of the revelations.

Notable now is the apparent equivocation over these revelations coming direct from God, having now a qualified authority. Apparently divine in origin, they seem more capable of interpretation and disagreement in their nature. It is a short step from here to saying that these are true “in the original autographs,” as is said of the Bible. The Bible, however, can appeal to an embarrassment of riches evidentially in manuscript, history, archaeology and scholarship to strengthen its claims.

Writings of Joseph Smith

I suggest the next step in this reassessment of Mormonism will be opening up the secret vaults in church headquarters and bringing out early Mormon documents, diaries and journals we know are there. There is already a work in progress to collate and make public the exhaustive writings of Joseph Smith. What a resource for those now seeking to reinvent Mormonism for the 21st century.

Against these early Mormon Church documents official Mormon writings and claims can be compared. This will give space for Mormons to move from a fundamentalist, literalist view of their faith to something that builds more on mythic truth than its traditional dogmatic truth.

It was felt necessary in the 1981 introduction to give an unquestionably positive account (some might say a selective account) of the publication of these revelations. Why, if not to instil in Mormons the thought that nothing qualified the utterances of their prophet. The substantial account inserted in 2013 offers considerable qualification of everything in the book and makes it capable of “explanation” by scholars in a way it never was before, and that puts scholars, not prophets, in the place of authority for the 21st century Mormon.

Mike Thomas was a Mormon for 14 years, became a Christian in 1986 and for many years worked with Reachout Trust speaking and writing about Mormonism. He still researches Mormonism and occasionally posts his thoughts on Mormon issues The Mormon Chapbook

Hey all for those of you who don’t know Concerned Christians, a ministry led by Andy Poland based in Arizona that seeks to reach out to Mormons, had their conference in the last month or so, you can catch the talks on youtube here.

Of particular interest to me was Shawn Mccraney sharing his story of going from Mormonism to Christ and how he got started in hosting the tv show Heart of the Matter. This is outstanding and so worth a watch.

This is a really interesting interview with my Utah based friend Russ Bales who runs the website Mormon Doctrine, talking about why he engages in the Ministry of reaching out to Mormons. This is helpful as it gets beneath the surface a bit on why people do this, as often I find we are seen as hate filled Anti-Mormons. I think Russ shows well that this is far from the case here.

In this Chapter Lorenzo admonishes the Church to come together seeking a oneness in their families. He advises parents to act in such a way that they can truly say to their children, ‘do as I do,’ as well as ‘do as I say.’ He encourages Husbands particularly to be kind to their wives. Within Mormonism the marriage is eternal and therefore is of great importance. He stresses that if you are faithful, your relationships with others will continue in the next life.

“The associations that are formed here, will be possessed by [us] in the eternal worlds. Fathers, mothers, sisters, brothers… The same forms of relationship here will still exist beyond the veil; the ties here formed will grow stronger in the other life which is to come.”

The thing I ask myself here though is how could this possibly be?

Perhaps if all of your family members made it to the highest level of the celestial kingdom would you be together forever then?

I don’t see how, with each couple exalted and living in separate worlds.

What if you are exalted and your children are not?

Then you are eternally separated.

What if none of you make it into the celestial kingdom?

Then you will be eternally separated.

And what about God?

Heaven to me is to be eternally in His presence. But who in Mormonism truly gets to have this? If God (as LDS theology states), has a physical body and those who are exalted, are each busy populating their individual worlds. How could they each be eternally in the presence of the Father. This is totally illogical.

The Bible says that we will be with God the Father and Jesus Christ eternally.

1 Thessalonians 4:17 Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, and so we will always be with the Lord.

John 14:2-4 (ESV) ² In my Father’s house are many rooms. If it were not so, would I have told you that I go to prepare a place for you?^[a] 3 And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and will take you to myself, that where I am you may be also. ⁴ And you know the way to where I am going.”^[b]

Jesus says that His Fathers House has many rooms, he speaks of one house. Heaven is one house with many rooms. Nowhere in the Bible does it say otherwise.

The LDSChurch misinterpret 1 Corinthians 15:41 to make the claim that there are varying degrees of Heaven…

⁴¹ There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.⁴² So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. ⁴³ It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. ⁴⁴ It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. ⁴⁵ Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;^[a] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit.

As you can see if you read on past verse 41, you are quickly told what the Sun, Moon and stars represent. Paul was speaking of the difference between our mortal and immortal bodies, as is plainly shown in the text.

John 17:24 ²⁴ Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world. ²⁵ O righteous Father, even though the world does not know you, I know you, and these know that you have sent me.

Gods plan is for us to be with Him, to be with Christ where he is. He wants us to see His Glory, not to seek our own.

You could say, ‘Gods way are not our ways, we can’t always understand the things of God.’

Isaiah 55:8 (ESV) For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.

Well I understand this, we have the Trinity, but although the Trinity may be a little confusing, I can just about bring my mind around to understanding it. I cannot however understand the utter contradictions in LDS theology regarding Heaven.

Think about it, are you worthy to be exalted? Are you keeping the whole Law? Are all of your family? Really? Maybe you do consider yourselves worthy of exaltation but are your children also? Or will you be separated for eternity?

“To enter the celestial and obtain exultation it is necessary that the whole law be kept” ( Joseph Fielding Smith, The way to perfection,p206)

I ask these questions as I know one of the big attractions for many to Mormonism is this idea of eternal families. The truth is though, according to Mormon theology you are more likely to be eternally separated from your family.

“There are preferential places and conditions in the hereafter, as there are here. The highest and most desirable is the celestial kingdom of our Father. In that Kingdom and only there do intelligences attain their highest state of perfection. Only there do we have assurance of the reunion of our families and the perpetuation of family relationship  and eternal increase. In that kingdom man may ultimately become divine.” (Stephen L Richards, conference reports, April 1938, p.24)

In other words only those worthy of exaltation will be with their families forever.

“President Francis M. Lyman many times has declared. And he had reason to declare, I believe, that if we save one half of the Latter-day Saints, that is, with an exultation in the celestial kingdom of God, we will be doing well…He would have every one of us go in if we would; but there are Laws and ordinances that we must keep;if we do not observe the Law we cannot enter. ( Joseph Fielding Smith Jr., Doctrines of salvation 2:15.)

In Christianity, those who receive Jesus as their saviour will all be together in Heaven. There are no differing levels we will all be eternally in the presence of the Father. If your mother, brother or sister also accept Jesus as Lord, they too will be with you in Heaven. Christianity does not place great emphasis on families, or on marriage, in respect of heaven, the bible tells us…

For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels in heaven. (Matt 22:30) ESV

Our Marriage and other relationships are important for this life, but in Heaven our focus is to be God.

 As always I appreciate any comments or feedback

The unique claim of Mormons is that they are led by “living prophets.” Prophets are integral to their claim to be a “Restoration” church, prophets are what distinguish Mormonism and prophets are foundational to their claim to, alone in this world, have authority to speak and act for God. It is understood, historically, that when a Mormon scholar speaks on Mormon issues, no matter how illustrious his or her career, how impressive their curriculum vitae, it is still “only their opinion,” albeit a professional opinion. Prophets alone make doctrine.

The Strange World of Mormon Prophets

However, Mormon prophets have come up with pretty wacky ideas and practices. The list is long: Polyamory, polygamy, polyandry, banking scandals, institutional racism, the Mountain Meadows Massacre. The exposure of the much vaunted Book of Abraham – “written by [Abraham’s] own hand” according to Joseph Smith – as an Egyptian Book of Breathings circa 50BC to 50AD. The infamous forgery scandals that hoodwinked Gordon B Hinckley and led to the tragic Salt Lake City bombings of 1985.

Mormon prophets have increasingly proved a liability and it has been the church’s practice to bury their dead prophets’ ideas along with them. Mormons are used to explaining away the embarrassing statements and practices of past leaders, from the sexually predacious Joseph Smith and the monomaniacal Brigham Young, through the rabid dogmatism of Bruce R McConkie, the bogus claims of Paul H Dunn and his “Early Life and War Experiences,” to the inability of Gordon B Hinckley to stay away from TV cameras, opening his mouth only to change feet.

I want to point out two developments I consider significant in this regard with the publication of their 2013 edition of the Mormon scriptures. Mormon prophets are so wrong as to be a liability and Mormons now admit it, and the Mormon Church is looking to academics to do what, in a more innocent time, prophets once did.

Declaration 2

On June 8, 1978 a statement was issued from church headquarters declaring the long standing ban on men of African descent holding the Mormon priesthood lifted. This statement is found in all subsequent editions of the Doctrine and Covenants (D&C), along with the earlier declaration of 1890 abandoning, officially, the practice of polygamy.

What is effectively a colour bar has been a thorn in the side of the Mormon Church and stood for most of that church’s history. Historically, it has been founded on Mormon Scripture and teaching. Generations of Mormon leaders have developed and at length taught the reasons for the bar to black priesthood holders.

In the 2013 edition of the D&C, to the original declaration has been appended a preface purporting to explain the background to this development:

The Book of Mormon teaches that “all are alike unto God,” including “black and white, bond and free, male and female” (2 Nephi 26:33). Throughout the history of the Church, people of every race and ethnicity in many countries have been baptized and have lived as faithful members of the Church. During Joseph Smith’s lifetime, a few black male members of the Church were ordained to the priesthood. Early in its history, Church leaders stopped conferring the priesthood on black males of African descent. Church records offer no clear insights into the origins of this practice. Church leaders believed that a revelation from God was needed to alter this practice and prayerfully sought guidance. The revelation came to Church President Spencer W. Kimball and was affirmed to other Church leaders in the Salt Lake Temple on June 1, 1978. The revelation removed all restrictions with regard to race that once applied to the priesthood.

Gone is the, the elaborate story of war in heaven, less noble pre-mortals, the curse of a black skin, talk of the negro being a descendent of Cain and a representative of Satan on the earth, key elements of the Plan of Salvation. Worse, gone is the confidence in prophets as the church openly “admits” it has no idea why this teaching held sway for almost 150 years of its 180 year history. Where once any Aaronic priesthood holder (age 12-17) might have explained it now even prophets cannot.

This is nonsense, of course, and they know and understand full well the elaborate theological arguments for the bar. As you scan the faces of Mormon General Authorities on the stand at conference time you are looking at men who grew up being taught and went on to teach the Mormon mythology regarding ignoble premortal lives, the consequent “curse” of black skin and its resulting proscriptions. This is a public relations exercise designed to distance today’s church from its own history, rather like Nazi’s burning documents when it became clear the war wasn’t going their way.

What is significant is the unqualified admission that prophets at the head of God’s only true church cannot understand or explain Mormon doctrine. Further, Mormon Church history, which has always been in the hands of a fastidiously “record-keeping” Mormonism, can shed no light on the matter. It comes to something when feigning such ignorance is better than owning your own church’s history and teaching.

Mormons, it seems, cannot look to their prophets, nor can they rely on their own historical records to help them understand their own church and doctrine. Where, then, are they to look for guidance? If not to prophets, past or present, where are Mormons to look for revelation? That’s the next post.