A Mormon Response to Fellowship Church |
by Cooper Johnson |
Continued response to Ed Young's Sermon on Mormons |
Pastor Young: And let me add another thingthere has never been one shred of archaeological evidence to substantiate one word in the Book of Mormon, not one. There's not a historian inside or outside the Mormon Church who can say "here is archaeological evidence." Call the Smithsonian Institution. They'll tell you the same thing. Well, let's start with the Smithsonian comment. You should try to update your research, because the Smithsonian Institution (hereafter referred to as "SI") will no longer validate your claim that there isn't any evidence. See, years ago, the Smithsonian sent out a form letter to everyone who requested information on the Book of Mormon from them. This form letter stated that there is a lack of evidence to substantiate the claim of trans-oceanic travel from the old world to the new world. This of course is how the people in the Book of Mormon arrived on this side of the world, from the Holy Landtrans-oceanic travel. Ask the Smithsonian Institution? Just like with most secular claims against the Book of Mormon, this line of thinking is disappearing, due to more and more evidence being found to the contrary. Let's get to the response from the Smithsonian. I thought I would take you up on your offer, so I sent an e-mail to the Smithsonian on December 27, 2000 requesting their opinion on the authenticity or evidence supporting Book of Mormon claims. Here is the e-mail I sent: I am looking for information regarding the Smithsonian's view and/or opinion on the authenticity of the Book of Mormon. I know that your institution, many years ago, used to send out a form letter referring to the lack of evidence regarding trans-oceanic voyages between the old world and the new. However, we know that much evidence has been discovered that opens the door for the possibility of contact from the old world with the new. What is the official stance of the Smithsonian Institution on this subject? Here is the Smithsonian's reply on January 2, 2001: Cooper Johnson With regard to your inquiry of December 27, the document you have requested is no longer available from the Smithsonian Institution. The Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide. The Smithsonian Institution has never used it in archeological research, and any information that you have received to the contrary is incorrect. Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated. Wanting to clarify and make sure the Smithsonian understood my request, I replied with the following on the same day (January 2, 2001): Thank you for your prompt reply. Just to clarify one issue. You mention that any information that I have demonstrating the Smithsonian Institution's use of the Book of Mormon in archaeological research is incorrect. I did not mean to infer that I had such a document. What I meant to say was this...In the past, when someone would request information on the Book of Mormon from the Smithsonian Institution, a letter would be sent from Smithsonian, to the effect that there is no evidence on trans-oceanic voyages before the 15th century, etc...and that there is no evidence to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. I take it from your reply that your organization is no longer sending that letter out in response to requests regarding the Book of Mormon. And I take it from your reply that the Smithsonian Institution is not commenting on the validity or invalidity of the Book of Mormon and archaeological evidence. Am I correct? Again, thanks for your quick response. I appreciate it. Cooper Johnson The Smithsonian replied on February 13 with the following clarifying response: Cooper Johnson Your inquiry of January 2 has been received in this office for response. Please note that the statement to which you refer is no longer available from the Smithsonian Institution. The stance of the Smithsonian is that the Book of Mormon is a religious document and not a scientific guide, and that we have never used it in archeological research. If you would like to receive a bibliography on the pre-history of the Americas, please provide your full name and postal mailing address. Your interest in the Smithsonian Institution is appreciated. So, ask the Smithsonian? I did. And they aren't playing your game (actually, I know this isn't your gameI'm sure you just got this out of one of your anti-Mormon booksthe anti-Mormon authors continue to use this Smithsonian argument even though it is no longer validmakes people like you look a little silly). It leaves one to wonder why, at one time, the Smithsonian would send out information regarding the lack of archeological evidence, but now the Smithsonian doesn't send that out anymore. The Bible and Evidence Moving along, regarding archeological evidence, first of all, is evidence absolutely necessary? I mean, let's say there wasn't any evidence to support the Bible, would you still believe? You would agree, wouldn't you, that the Bible is true and the word of God, whether there is evidence to support it or not? So, is this a standard that you use to judge scripture? If this is a standard used to judge scripture, then you would need to start taking chunks of the Bible out. For example, what about Adam and Eve? Or Noah? Or Abraham, Isaac, Jacob? Or Mosesthe burning bushthe tablets on which the 10 commandments were written? What about the day of Pentecost, or the vision of Paul, or garden of Gethsemane, or resurrection of Jesus Christ, himself? We could go on and on. Should we throw these out of the Bible because there is not "one shred of archeological evidence," to support these claims? Of course not, that would be silly. We believe because of faith, not because of evidence. The true source of real faith is the Holy Spirit. Let's continue to turn the table and look at Bible archaeology, according to William Hamblin: "After a century of modern research," Dever notes, "neither Biblical scholars nor archaeologists have been able to document as historical any of the events, much less the personalities, of the patriarchal or Mosaic eras."82 Archaeology, Dever says, "has not brought to light any direct evidence to substantiate the story that an Abraham lived, that he migrated from Mesopotamia to Canaan or that there was a Joseph who found his way to Egypt and rose to power there. . . . The tradition is made up of legends that still may be regarded as containing moral truths, but until now they must be regarded as of uncertain historical provenance."83 And what of Moses and the spectacular events of the Exodus from Egypt? "Absolutely no trace of Moses, or indeed of an Israelite presence in Egypt, has ever turned up. Of the Exodus and the wandering in the wilderness . . . we have no evidence whatsoever."84 As an example, Dever cites "recent Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea, the Sinai oasis where the Israelites are said to have encamped for 38 years."85 Surely such a lengthy stay by such a large group, somewhere during or prior to 1200 B.C., would leave considerable evidence. And, indeed, the Israeli excavations at Kadesh-Barnea "have revealed an extensive settlement, but not so much as a potsherd earlier than the tenth century B.C."86 (all end notes refer to William G. Dever, "Archaeology and the Bible: Understanding Their Special Relationship," Biblical Archaeology Review 16/3 (May/June 1990): 52-58, 62 as quoted in Basic Methodological Problems with the Anti-Mormon Approach to the Geography and Archaeology of the Book of Mormon, William J. Hamblin, Journal of Book of Mormon Studies) Again, should we tear all of these pages out of the Bible and throw them away along with the Book of Mormon? Of course not. Just because we don't have archaeological evidence to support it, doesn't mean we throw it out. We can receive a witness of the Holy Spirit of all truth. This is where our faith should reside. This is the true source of testimony of the Bible and of the Book of Mormonnot evidence. When Jesus asked Peter "whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" Peter answered with a variety of answers, but when Jesus asked Peter "whom say ye that I am?" And of course Peter replies with, "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." Now, Pastor Young, you know the next line. Christ says, "Blessed art thou Simon Barjona (Peter), for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven." Peter didn't need evidence or some scholar proving this point. Peter believed because God, the Father, through the Holy Spirit, revealed it to Peter. (Matt 16:13-17) Evidence is not the source of faith. There are many more examples in the Bible of this. The early Christians of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century didn't even have the Bible as we now have, much less archeological evidenceyet they believed. That being said, the fact is, however, that evidence does exist to support the claims of the Book of Mormon. As to your comment regarding the lack of historians "inside or outside of the Mormon Church who can say here is archaeological evidence." Well, here is a quick list of historians, scientists, archeologists, scholars, etc., that would disagree with you (these all have studied and either found evidence or agree that there is evidence): John L. Sorensen John W. Welch Hugh Nibley David A. Palmer Gary R. Hooper Warren P. Aston Michael K. Aston S. Kent Brown George Potter Timothy Sedor Daniel Peterson Stephen D. Ricks John Gee Noel B. Reynolds Andrew C. Skinner Donald W. Parry We could go on and on (if I took more time, I could probably identify 10 times more, but I only really needed to provide one name to disprove your statement). There are literally mounds of evidence. These scholars, historians, archeologists, scientists, etc. are producing incredible work, resulting in discoveries and findings that just add to the mounting evidence for the Book of Mormon. The problem is that you and the sources you use just refuse to acknowledge that the evidence exists. It is this evidence that the Evangelical Christian scholars, Mosser and Owen (mentioned at the beginning of this paper) are referring to when they say that the Christian scholars are losing the battle with the Mormons. There is more from Mosser and Owen below. Evidence for the Book of Mormon Now let's move on to evidence that supports the Book of Mormon. The interesting thing about this subject is that for people that don't want to believe, all the evidence in the world wouldn't be enough to believe. There are many Christians in the world that think there is plenty of evidence to support the Bible. But there are many atheists that don't believe in that evidence. The point is thisover the years since Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon, time has been it's best friend. Over time, more and more evidence is found to validate it's claims. See, if the Book of Mormon were a fraud, you would expect time to be it's biggest enemy. Over a period of time, you would expect evidences to be found that would consistently prove it a fraud. This hasn't happened. The following is based on the research of Jeff Lindsay and found in "Frequently Asked Questions, Evidences of the Book of Mormon." (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/index.html) We can go into much greater detail. However, for the purposes of this paper, I think this will do. Just let me know if you want more on any particular subject. "The Book of Mormon was absolutely laughable to the scientific world of the 1800s on many counts WHICH NOW HAVE BECOME SOLID EVIDENCE FOR THE BOOK. For example, the whole story of ancient people writing on metal plates to preserve a document for future generations was ridiculous in 1830. It was unheard of. Anti-Mormon books emphasized the stupidity of such an idea. And now museums around the world offer numerous examples of recently discovered ancient writings on gold, copper, lead, and other metals. The copper scroll from Israel is a remarkably strong parallel - sacred writings on metal to be preserved for the future. I will not cite all evidences of the Book of Mormon. I will refer to a few. Some of the most recent evidence for authenticity is the description of Nephi's journey through the Arabian Peninsula. In the first book of the Book of Mormon, a Prophet, Nephi, describes his family's journey out of the Jerusalem area through the wilderness and across the land that we now know as the Arabian peninsula. Along the way, Nephi gives specific directions, descriptions, a place name for a burial site (Nahom) and a description of a beautiful, green, tree-rich coastal location nearly due east of Nahom which Nephi's group called Bountiful. Today, numerous details of the account have been verified - right down to the location of the ancient burial place called Nahom ("Nehem" on modern maps) and the discovery of a sterling candidate for Bountiful nearly due east of Nahom on the coast of Oman. This place, Wadi Sayq, meets every criteria offered by the Book of Mormon text (abundant fruit, trees, fresh water, cliffs, a mountain, flint, ore, etc.). Anti-Mormon books still poke fun at Bountiful, for "everyone knows" that there can be no such place in the barren, dry Arabian Peninsula. They have been proven terribly wrong, and the only logical explanation for the accuracy of Nephi's account is that it was written by someone who actually made the journey described in the Book of Mormon. (See In the Footsteps of Lehi by Warren P. Aston and Michael K. Aston, Deseret Book Comp., Salt Lake City, UT, 1994.) I read of an educated man who left the Church of Jesus Christ around the turn of the century because the references to the use of cement for construction in the Book of Mormon was a laughable anachronism (everybody knows that there was no use of cement in the new world before the 16th centuryI'm sure the SI used to validate this claim). He boldly told a leader of the Church that the book must be a fraud, based on the cement problem. Today the use of concrete in ancient Mesoamerica (central and parts of South America, which is where the people of the Book of Mormon existed) is well known. Tourists to Mesoamerica can find ancient cement work in abundance at Teotihuacan (which is in the right area for cement use according to modern models for Book of Mormon geography). Mesoamerican cement was being used at least by the first century B.C. It was a blunder for anyone writing in 1830 - but now is one more piece of evidence (though a tiny one!) of authenticity. Book of Mormon names were also a target for attack - and still are, even by people who know better. Most laughable of all was the name Alma, one of the most prominent in the Book of Mormon. Alma is a woman's name of Latin origin (as in alma mater) and is common in Spanish and occurs in America as well. Yet it is a man's name in the Book of Mormon. Smith really blew it - using a Latin woman's name in a Semitic society! However, the name Alma has now been discovered as an authentic ancient Jewish man's name. In the Judean Cave of Letters, on 15 March 1961, Professor Yadin found a bundle of papyrus rolls wrapped in a cloth. And among them was a deed to some land near En-Gedi owned by four men, one of whom was "Alma the son of Judah." This papyrus was (and may still be) displayed prominently in the Shrine of the Book (or is it Scroll?) in Jerusalem (the dome-like white building not far from the Jerusalem Hilton)." Some of the most powerful evidence is linguistic. The existence of numerous passages of chiasmus (a poetical form in which ideas are structured like the Greek letter chi or X - a mirror image with a focal point) clearly marks the Book of Mormon as having ancient Semitic origins. Chiasmus could not possibly have been known to Joseph Smith, and it was only in the past few decades that scholars have recognized its prevalence in ancient middle Eastern texts and only in the past few years that it was noticed in the Book of Mormon. Yet it is obviously and clearly there. Non-LDS Scholars and Book of Mormon Evidence Mosser and Owen mention this chiasmus structure of writing among other important parallels between the Book of Mormon and other ancient texts: LDS writers are not alone in noting various parallels between these ancient texts and Mormon literature. James H. Charlesworth, in a lecture delivered at Brigham Young University entitled, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," points to what he describes as "important parallels . . . that deserve careful examination." He cites examples from 2 Baruch, 4 Ezra, Psalms of Solomon and the Testament of Adam.(1) If the world's leading authority on ancient pseudepigraphal writings thinks such examples deserve "careful examination," it might be wise for evangelicals to do some examining. [italics in the original] ... Yale's Harold Bloom is perplexed as how to explain the many parallels between Joseph Smith's writings and ancient apocalyptic, pseudepigraphal, and kabbalistic literature. He writes, "Smith's religious genius always manifested itself though what might be termed his charismatic accuracy, his sure sense of relevance that governed biblical and Mormon parallels. I can only attribute his genius or daemon his uncanny recovery of elements in ancient Jewish theurgy that had ceased to be available either to normative Judaism or to Christianity, and that had survived only in esoteric traditions unlikely to have touched Smith directly."(2) Footnotes cited above: 1. James H. Charlesworth, "Messianism in the Pseudepigrapha and the Book of Mormon," in Reflections on Mormonism: Judeo-Christian Parallels, ed. Truman G. Madsen (Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1978), 99-137. Non-LDS biblical scholars Jacob Milgrom, David Noel Freedman, W.D. Davies and Krister Stendahl also contributed to this volume. 2. Harold Bloom, The American Religion (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 101 (emphasis added). Now, remember, Mosser and Owen are not LDS scholars. They are Evangelical Christian scholars and they are quoting Charlesworth and Bloom, both non-LDS scholars. The net of it all is thisthere is plenty of evidence out there, if you want to take an objective look at the research that has been done. Non-LDS scholars are becoming increasingly aware of this. However, the anti-Mormon authors are not addressing this mounting evidence. I will conclude this section by using one more quote by Mosser and Owen. They provide a great example of how the historical, textual, archeological, and theological evidence produced by LDS scholars is treated by anti-Mormon authors (this should give you an idea of the quality of your sources). The Christian world, just doesn't want to deal with the mounting evidence. Where are the Evangelicals? We hope by this point we have convinced some of our readers that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is currently producing a robust apologetic for their beliefs. Their scholars are qualified, ambitious, and prolific. What are we doing in response? The silence has become deafening. And it is getting louder. The only two significant attempts (apart from the Tanners) are one article by James White and a recent book by Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John WeldonThey (Ankerberg and Weldon) accuse Mormons of being unwilling "to consider the established theological, textual, historical, and archaeological facts surrounding Mormonism and Christianity." The fact of the matter is that it is our evangelical brothers who in this book display their own unwillingness to give any consideration to such issues. Nor do they intend to It is amazing, in light of the massive amount of purported evidence that has been published by the LDS, that they could make such a statement. Let us move on. Pastor Young: The Pearl of Great Price is another book and this one is really about 136 regulations or you could say revelations, that Joseph Smith and the Mormon Church believe. While I mean no disrespect, Pastor Young, you are obviously not doing your own research and must be relying upon these anti-Mormon writers who haven't done their homework. The Pearl of Great Price does not have 136 regulationsnor does it have 136 revelations. It contains the Book of Abraham and the Book of Moses, the Articles of Faith and Joseph Smith-History and Joseph Smith-Matthew. You must have this confused with a book entitled The Doctrine and Covenants. However, it doesn't have 136 regulationsit contains many revelations given to Joseph Smith regarding doctrine and organizing the Church among other things. You surely understand the difference between a regulation and a revelation, don't you Pastor Young? I'm sure you doI'll drop it. Pastor Young: This is huge and this is what has got the Mormon Church leaders in such predicaments that have embarrassed the Mormon Church to a great degree. And here is what they believe. They believe that the head of the Mormon church can speak truth from God. When the head of the Mormon church says "Thus sayeth the Lord," then what he says is raw truth from God. Yes, Pastor Young, this concept is called revelation through a Prophet. The Church of Jesus Christ believes in Prophets. I don't know of any "predicament" or embarrassing moment due to this truth. Prophets and belief in Prophets has always been a part of the Lord's Church, from the time of Adam, through the time of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Malachi. This continued during the time of Jesus Christ, as he chose his Apostles. The apostles were indeed prophets and there were others during that time and after Jesus' resurrection and ascension into heaven. God has always chosen inspired teachers and leaders (the definition of Prophet) to lead his people. Jesus Christ, himself said: "Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city..." (Matthew 23:34) A great Old Testament Prophet tells us: "Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secrets unto his servants the prophets." (Amos 3:7) Believing in Prophets is certainly not an un-Biblical belief. As a matter of fact, the people in the Bible believed in revelation through Prophets. And no where in the Bible does it state that there will never be Prophets again. I know a lot of Christians, including Pastors don't believe in modern day Prophets. But this certainly isn't a belief taught in the Bible. As a matter of fact, Jesus Christ gives us a formula to follow for the purposes of determining whether or not a Prophet is a true Prophet or a false Prophet. "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. (Matt 7:15-20) If there were to be no more Prophets, it seems that Jesus would have said "all who claim to be a prophet are false prophets," instead of providing us with a way to test a prophet. It would be silly to provide a formula like this if there were to be no more prophets, don't you think, Pastor Young? But, again, referring to your statement, I don't recall any embarrassment coming from the fact that we are led by a Prophet of God. Let us move on to your comments on Joseph Smith. Pastor Young: I want to mention several prophecies that Mormon leader, Joseph Smith threw out there that have caused great embarrassment. In fact, they're still embarrassing Mormons today. The first one is a prophecy that Joseph Smith uttered specifically in 1843 and this is out of the Doctrine and Covenants, Section 132. Smith talked about the legitimacy and the desirability of polygamy. Another living prophet threw out supposedly the infallible prophet of Joseph Smith about polygamy. First of all, this is not a prophecy. A prophecy is a divine prediction ow something that is to come. Secondly, I'm not sure what your conclusion is with this statement, but if you are using plural marriage to judge a prophet, then of course you would need to apply this standard to other prophets. And if you do so, Pastor Young, you would have to eliminate some of the greatest prophets of the Bible. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob (Israel), Solomon, and David were all polygamists (see Gen. 25:1-6, Gen. 29 and 30, 2 Samuel 12:7-9). They all had multiple wives and were prophets. Additional Biblical examples of polygamy are found in Judges 8:30, 2 Chronicles 24:2-3, and Deuteronomy 21:15-17. Why Plural Marriage? Now, this practice of plural marriage certainly clashes with traditional/modern European culture. But, are we to consider practices immoral or wrong simply because it flies in the face of our current cultural perspectives? If so, we must throw out large portions of the Bible. God does things for his own purposes. I don't know all the reasons why God commanded and/or allowed plural marriages in the days of Abraham or Solomon or in the 1800's. As it relates to the 1800's, early in LDS history, there are several possibilities: - It served as a type of welfare program for the many, many widowed and single women and children who were without a husband/father. As you know, there was much persecution of the Latter-day Saints in those days and many men were killed, leaving women and children without a provider. - It most definitely served as a means of quickly populating the people, which it also did in the days of the Old Testament. Abraham's "seed" (i.e. his descendants) had great promises from the Lord and because of plural marriages, his "seed" was quickly populated and became numerous. - It most certainly was a trial of faith for the saints. When considering all the possible reasons for plural marriage among the Church of Jesus Christ in the 1800's, you must realize that it had nothing to do with anything immoral or lustful. Mark Twain made this assumption and thought the Mormon men were a bunch of rogues. Then he took a trip to Utah to check things out and saw these rough and tough pioneer Mormon women and changed his mind. He then praised the Mormon men for being true faithful saints. All joking aside, this was a very carefully guarded practice. Parley P. Pratt had this to say, commenting on how plural marriage was to be practiced among the Latter-day Saints: "These holy and sacred ordinances have nothing to do with whoredoms, unlawful connections, confusion or crime; but the very reverse. They have laws, limits, and bounds of the strictest kind, and none but the pure in heart, the strictly virtuous, or those who repent and become such, are worthy to partake of them. And[a] dreadful weight of condemnation await those who pervert, or abuse them" [The Prophet, May 24, 1845; cf. D&C 132:7]. So it is important to know that this was not some free-for-all. To the contrary, it was a very sacred responsibility not to be mis-used or abused. In fact it was only a very small percentage of the LDS men (5 or 6%) during that 50 year period (1840's to 1890) that practiced plural marriage. The bottom line when it comes to plural marriage, whether it be in the days of the Bible or in the 1800's, is that it is very difficult to understand because we don't always know God's purposes. It is, however, very easy to misunderstand for the same reason. Joseph Smith and the Mormons did not practice plural marriages because of anything other than a command of God. The Book of Mormon is clear on the subject, that plural marriage is normally forbidden unless otherwise commanded by God (Jacob 2:27-30). In the history of this world we see God using this practice for his own purposes, albeit temporarily each time. However, because it is so far removed from our cultural views, it is difficult to comprehend. Plural Marriage and Christianity Before we move on, I want to point out again, Pastor Young, that you need to be careful in erecting standards with which to judge people. You must be willing to apply these standards to judge others. And in many cases in your sermon, this can work against you. We already established that several of the greatest Prophets of the Bible practiced plural marriage. What if we took a glimpse at Christian history over the last 2000 years? Here is what we would find: - 6th Century Arab Christians were practicing Polygamists. (D.S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, New York: Putnam's Sons,1905: 38, 160.) - Ethiopian Christians were also practicing polygamists around the same time. (D.S. Margoliouth, Mohammed and the Rise of Islam, New York: Putnam's Sons,1905: 38, 160.) - Martin Luther, the father of the reformation and Protestant Christianity, supported polygamy in certain situations. - Luther suggested plural marriage to King Henry's representative, Robert Barnes in 1531, regarding the King's request to divorce and re-marry. (Ernst L. Enders, ed., Dr. Martin Luther's Briefwechsel, Stuttgart, Verein der Varlagsbuchhandlung, 1903, 9: 80-99. Vol. 9 is from a 17 volume set, published 1884-1915.) - To be fair, however, Luther made the statement that he preferred monogamy, stating that " a Christian is not free to marry several wives unless God commands him to go beyond the liberty which is conditioned by love." (Theodore G. Tappert, ed. and trans., Luther: Letters of Spiritual Counsel, Philadelphia, Westminster, 1955) Note the glaring similarity to the Book of Mormon verse in Jacob 2:27-30 mentioned above. - Luther made the same suggestion to Phillip of Hesse, that he should enter a plural marriage, which he justified from the Old Testament. Phillip followed Luther's advice. When the ensuing controversy broke out, Luther commented, "I am not ashamed of the counsel I gave even if it should become known throughout the world. Because it is unpleasant, however, I should prefer, if possible, to have it kept quiet." (same as above, Tappert, 288-291, see also Here I Stand: A Life of Martin Luther, Nashville, Abingdon, 1950: 373-375) The End of Plural Marriage in 1890 And finally, on this subject, is the end of plural marriage in 1890. Another prophet, the leader of the Church of Jesus Christ at the time, Wilford Woodruff declared that the time had come to end the practice of plural marriage. The Lord had revealed it unto him that it was time to end it. Now the way you put it, Pastor Young, "another living prophet threw out supposedly the infallible prophet of Joseph Smith about polygamy," I guess you expect every prophetic declaration to last forever. You seem to be saying that because this practice was halted by another prophet 50 years laterbecause it was "reversed," that Joseph Smith was not really a prophet. I'm not certain why you would make this assumption. Being an educated Pastor and student of the Bible, you surely know that many, many teachings of the prophets in the Bible were changed, reversed and altogether done away with by other prophets later. So, apply this standard to the Bible and you eliminate another slew of prophets and their teachings. Should we apply this standard to the law of Moses? Was the practice of animal sacrifice meant to be forever? This certainly has not been practiced by Christians in the past 2000 years. What about circumcision? This was supposed to have been an "everlasting covenant," according to Genesis 17:13, but was changed later (Paul refers to this twice in 1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 5:6). So should we rule out Moses as a prophet, because animal sacrifice and circumcision was done away with? We could identify a large number of practices that were taught and then ended in the Bible. Using your standard, Jesus Christ himself would not even be considered a prophet. As you know, Jesus commanded the Apostles to only take the gospel to the Israelites, not the Gentiles (Matthew 10:5-6 and 15:24). He then reversed that commandment before he ascended to Heaven when he told the Apostles to "teach all nations," (Matthew 28:19) and "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature." (Mark 16:15) To conclude on this subject, to say that a prophet is false if his teachings are later changed, is absolutely incorrect. This is a standard that would eliminate a number of prophets in the Bible. Let's move along to your next topic. Pastor Young: Another prophecy Smith put into writing was thathe was a racist, very much a racist. He has quotes about African Americans that I would not read from this platform. He prohibited in his revelation, African Americans, from full participation in the Mormon Church and this stood in the Mormon Church for over 100 years. But they got some pressure. One of the points of pressure was an interview that Barbara Walters did with the Osmond family. And Barbara asked them, how can you justify being part of a religion that does not treat people equally. Well, a couple days later, to be exact June 9, 1978, Spencer Kimball, the leader of the Mormon Church had this "revelation from God," and he said oops, oh it's ok for African Americans now to be full participating members in the Mormon Church. Just kidding! You know, the 100 year thing, how it stood, you know, you know. I will break up you remark into three parts in my response. First you state: Pastor Young: Another prophecy Smith put into writing was thathe was a racist, very much a racist. He has quotes about African Americans that I would not read from this platform. (Again, this is not a prophecy. Refer to my reference above to what a prophecy is.) First of all, Pastor Young, let's be honest, here. You don't have any quotes from Joseph Smith to that effect. Here is my challenge to youif you won't read them from the platform, then send them to meI would like to see them. Many anti-Mormons have been challenged to produce these horrible, racist comments of Joseph Smith. The truth is they don't exist! It's make-believe. Seriously, I challenge you to produce one, only one, quote from Joseph Smith that is racially offensive. You can't do itit's nothing but shock valuesensationalism. This is an old trick of anti-Mormon writers. Joseph Smith and African Americans I will, on the other hand, provide some quotes by Joseph Smith regarding African Americans. Let's take a look at a couple of situations in Joseph Smith's life, involving African-Americans. The first one identifies an instance where Joseph took in two escaped slaves into his home. One stayed for the rest of the Prophet's life. "And in addition to those, there were those who came and pled for other kinds of help. How would it be for example, to be sound asleep, the door rings, and here stand before you two Negro women. They say they have traveled over 600 miles, crossed lots, daring not to go on the highways, lest they be apprehended. They have escaped from some who has threatened their lives. They are both converts to the Church. What can they do? Where can they go? Joseph calls Emma down, 'Emma, these sisters say they have no place to stay. Is that true?' 'No, Joseph, they can stay here.' Jane, one of the two, stayed the rest of the Prophet's liferecords what it was like to be involved in the prayers of that family and that she was not a slave and not a servant, but treated like one of the family." (Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, Salt Lake City) And another situation when Joseph helped an African-American man who was charged with drunkenness in the Mormon city of Nauvoo, Illinois. "Now the Prophet had the burden of being a judge, too. He was the Mayor of Nauvoo and the head of the Legion. That meant discipline as the Legionaire and judgement rendered as the Mayor. So, Anthony, also a Negro, comes and what's happened? Well, against the Nauvoo Charter, he has been found drunk, on the sabbath, to make it worse. What can the Prophet do? Pronounces sentence, fines him, and tells him to go and take one of the prophet's own horses and sell it to get the money to pay the fine." (Truman G. Madsen, Joseph Smith, the Prophet, Salt Lake City) Does this sound like a racist, Pastor Young? What was his opinion of slavery? Joseph Smith was against slavery, which was one of the reasons of persecution of the Mormons by the Missouri mobs (I'm sure you are aware of all of the persecution he and the Mormons received in Missouri and elsewhere). Regarding the Missouri period, here you had a bunch of Mormons (tens of thousands), who were against slavery, moving into the state of Missouri, a slave state. What a political threat to the state of Missouri (a bunch of "slave lovers," as they were called, in a slave state)! But you won't find any of this in anti-Mormon materials. You only hear about Joseph Smith referred to as a racist. Well, I would like to see some of these racist ideas of Joseph Smith. Not yet, have I seen one quote produced by an anti-Mormon writer. The following gives us a good perspective on the feelings of Joseph Smith on African American people and slavery: Finally, it was given by the inspiration of God to the Prophet [Joseph Smith] first to utter the most statesman-like word upon this vexed question of slavery, and had the nation and people of the United States but given heed to his recommendations it would have settled the question in harmony with the convictions of the people of the North, and without injustice to the South. Here follows his statesman-like word, published throughout the United States in 1844--eleven years before Ralph Waldo Emerson made substantially the same recommendation, and for which the philosopher received no end of praise: "Petition, also, ye goodly inhabitants of the slave states, your legislators to abolish slavery by the year 1850, or now, and save the abolitionist from reproach and ruin, and infamy and shame. Pray Congress to pay every man a reasonable price for his slaves out of the surplus revenue arising from the sale of the public lands, and from the deduction of pay from the members of Congress. Break off the shackles from the poor black man, and hire him to labor like other human beings; for an hour of virtuous liberty is worth a whole eternity of bondage." (History of the Church, Vol.3, Introduction, Pg.26) Additionally, Josiah Quincy, the mayor of Boston and a very well known, powerful and recognized politician and author, who had the occasion of meeting Joseph Smith in 1844, made some comments referring to Joseph Smith's remarks and those of Emerson regarding the same subject: "We, who can look back upon the terrible cost of the fratricidal war which put an end to slavery, now say that such a solution of the difficulty would have been worthy a Christian statesman. But if the retired scholar [referring to Emerson] was in advance of his time when he advocated this disposition of the public property, in 1855, what shall I say of the political and religious leader [referring to Joseph Smith] who had committed himself in print, as well as in conversation, to the same course in 1844? If the atmosphere of men's opinions was stirred by such a proposition when war clouds were discernible in the sky, was it not a statesman-like word eleven years earlier when the heavens looked tranquil and beneficent?" (Josiah Quincy, Figures of the Past, "Joseph Smith at Nauvoo," p. 398, as cited by B. H. Roberts, Comprehensive History of the Church, Vol. 2, Ch. 51, p.192) I will agree with you on one thingThe evidence regarding Joseph Smith's view of African Americans is most definitely overwhelming. The evidence provides a very interesting and different perspective, doesn't it. We find that Joseph Smith was no racist. He wanted the abolition of slavery. He respected all people of all races. Let's move to the second part of your statement: Pastor Young: He prohibited in his revelation, African Americans, from full participation in the Mormon Church and this stood in the Mormon Church for over 100 years. African Americans have always been allowed full membership in the Church. This is a fact. Now, ordination into the Priesthood was indeed restricted and delayed to people of a certain lineage until 1978. This is true and this is obviously what you really mean by your comment. But this has nothing to do with racism or skin color. It is a question of lineage, which again is not an unbiblical standard. We will talk more about this later. First, the teaching of Joseph and the Church. The LDS View of African Americans The LDS teaching on the matter make things quite clear: men should be free from bondage to another. Slavery is absolutely wrong. Men should not judge another or treat each other any different based on the color of one's skin. Additionally, people of all races are extended the opportunity for salvation. In the Book of Mormon, a great prophet of God said: "For none of these iniquities come of the Lord; for he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile." (2 Nephi 26:33) We also find, recorded in the Doctrine and Covenants, the following statement contained in a revelation given from the Lord to Joseph Smith in 1833: "Therefore, it is not right that any man should be in bondage one to another." (D&C 101:79) The Church does not support nor teach racial discrimination. We find this respectful attitude toward the African race continuing through the 1970's, as Spencer W. Kimball, former President of the Church making this clear in 1972: "Intolerance by Church members is despicable. A special problem exists with respect to blacks because they may not now [1972] receive the priesthood. Some members of the Church would justify their own un-Christian discrimination against blacks because of that rule with respect to the priesthood, but while this restriction has been imposed by the Lord, it is not for us to add burdens upon the shoulders of our black brethren. They who have received Christ in faith through authoritative baptism are heirs to the celestial kingdom along with men of all other races. And those who remain faithful to the end may expect that God may finally grant them all blessings they have merited through their righteousness. Such matters are in the Lord's hands. It is for us to extend our love to all." (From a 1972 address reprinted in The Teachings of Spencer W. Kimball, Deseret Book, 1982.) The Priesthood and Those of African Descent Now if Joseph Smith wasn't a racist and the Church of Jesus Christ isn't racist, then why didn't the Church allow those of Black African descent to hold the Priesthood before 1978? This is a great question and is one to which we do not have all the answers, just like many questions in the gospel. However, this doesn't mean one should take an unreasonable leap from "this action appears to have been racially discriminatory," to the conclusion, "so they must be racist." This is a dangerous standard to erect and would not bode well if used to judge Catholicism, Protestant Christianity, Old Testament Judeaism, or New Testament Christianity. Let's try to dig a little deeper and understand this issue better. With reference to the limitation on those of Black African descent to hold the Priesthood, many people make the argument thus: The God of the Bible would never authorize such a discriminatory practiceorGod sees all people as equal and all have the same opportunity and would never discriminate against people for any reason, especially race. Well, in the Old and New Testaments we find many instances where certain restrictions were in place to exclude certain followers from various positions in the Church (including the Priesthood) and even restrict those who could enter the Church, based on lineage, background and other reasons. Jeff Lindsay provides us with a couple of examples: "At the time of Moses on, we find that the priesthood was limited to members of one small tribe in the House of Israel, the tribe of Levi, and that only descendants of Aaron could be priests, and only the firstborn male descendants of Aaron's line could be the High Priest. The Book of Ezra in the Old Testament offers an interesting example of limitations to the Priesthood. It shows that even sons of priests were denied the priesthood apparently because they could not prove they were of the proper ancestry: "And these were they which went up from Telmelah, Telharsa, Cherub, Addan, and Immer: but they could not shew their father's house, and their seed, whether they were of Israel: The children of Delaiah, the children of Tobiah, the children of Nekoda, six hundred fifty and two. And of the children of the priests: the children of Habaiah, the children of Koz, the children of Barzillai; which took a wife of the daughters of Barzillai the Gileadite, and was called after their name: These sought their register among those that were reckoned by genealogy, but they were not found: therefore were they, as polluted, put from the priesthood." (Ezra 2:59-62) Additionally, when Christ founded his Church in New Testament times, we initially find that non-Israelites ("Gentiles") were excluded from the priesthood (since the Gospel was not yet taken to them), but after a revelation to Peter (Acts 10), the Gentiles were welcomed into the Church and, presumably, the priesthood. (Jeff Lindsay, Frequently Asked Questions about Latter-day Saint Beliefs, The Issue of Race) So, if one wants to judge the Mormons and condemn them as racists, for limiting the Priesthood from or delaying it to those of Black African descent, one must also judge and condemn those great Prophets of the Old Testament (for limiting the Priesthood to those of Levitical descentand specific offices to the sons of Aaron [Exodus 28:1-4; 40:12-15; Numbers 3:5-10]). One must also judge and condemn the New Testament Apostles and Jesus Christ himself (for limiting the priesthood and even the preaching of the gospel to non-Israelites). Additionally, we can find in the Old Testament specific groups of people that were denied membership in the Church for a variety of reasons, including lineage. Charles D. Pyle provides us with an overview of these activities: "Little known to most of the Christian world, is the fact that the LORD, at one time, had even forbidden certain classes of individuals from entrance into the congregation (or church) of the LORD! These classes of individuals were: 1. those who had been castrated (Deuteronomy 23:1); 2. those born illegitimately, including their descendants to the tenth generation (Deuteronomy 23:2); and, 3. those who were descended through Moab and Ammon (Deuteronomy 23:3). The reason for the ban on Moab and Ammon? Because they refused to give Israel food or drink, and because they had hired a prophet to curse Israel (Deuteronomy 23:4)! To some, this may seem a foolish reason to bar generations of people from membership in the congregation but, to be sure, it was reason enough for the Lord to do what he did that this author will not question His infinite wisdom in this matter." (Charles D. Pyle, Blacks and the Priesthood, 1993) When we continue a search of the scriptures, we can find the preaching and blessings of the gospel being delayed to certain groups of people. The Apostles were given very specific instructions not to preach unto the Gentiles (not of the house of Israel) or the Samaritans. The specific instructions were only to take the gospel to the tribes or descendants of Israel (Matthew 10:5-6). Recorded later in the book of Matthew, Christ repeats that he was only sent to the "lost sheep of the house of Israel," (Matt 15:24). Of course, Jesus later gives the "Great Commission," to take the gospel unto "all nations." And as stated above by Mr. Lindsay, in Acts 10, we find Peter receiving a revelation to take the gospel unto the Gentiles. Again we find the same pattern in the scriptures of the Old and New Testament as we have found in the Church of Jesus Christ. God, for his own reasonsand we aren't always privy to those reasons, limits certain blessings from certain people and also delays certain blessings to certain people. These may seem arbitrary and random, but they are the actions of the Lord and his chosen prophets. Of course, pressure did indeed mount against the Church to change it's discriminatory policy. Through the 1960's and early 70's, pressure continued to build. The leaders of the Church published the following letter on the subject in 1969: "From the beginning of this dispensation, Joseph Smith and all succeeding Presidents of the Church have taught that Negroes, while spirit children of a common Father, and the progeny of our earthly parents Adam and Eve, were not yet to receive the priesthood, for reasons which we believe are known to God, but which he has not made fully known to man. Our living prophet, President David O. McKay, has said, "The seeming discrimination by the Church toward the Negro is not something which originated with man; but goes back into the beginning with God .... Revelation assures us that this plan antedates man's mortal existence, extending back to man's preexistent state. President McKay has also said, Sometime in God's eternal plan, the Negro will be given the right to hold the priesthood." In 1978, the day came. Now, to believe all of this, one must believe that God still communicates his will through his prophets. You may or may not believe in modern-day Prophets. However, on June 1, 1978, the top leaders of the Church (The Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, and the First Presidencywhich consists of the President of the Church or the Prophet, his two counselors) met in the Salt Lake Temple and brought up this issue, as they had done in the past (a description of this event is in the appendix, given by one of the Twelve Apostles present in that meeting). The revelation came and the decision was unanimous to make the change. The Lord had spoken and it was time. The official letter from the Church leaders announcing the change is also in the appendix. It was sent to regional and local leaders on June 8, 1978. Racism in Christianity? Now, before I conclude on this subject, I want to apply the same standard on other Christian religions, that have been applied to the Church of Jesus Christ on this matter. This is not to throw stones, but only to illustrate the point that if one is going to judge people, again, as I have continued to point out, you had better be careful with the standards that are used. For if you turn them around, you might just condemn yourself. I would like to take a look at the history of racial relations in the Protestant Churches and the Catholic Church. It was Martin Luther King, Jr., himself that said "Eleven o'clock on Sunday morning . . . is the most segregated hour in Christian America." Racism in American Christian history runs very deep and we don't have to go too far in the past to realize this fact. There is much written on this subject, but I have chosen to use a few quotes from an article written by non-LDS/Christian author, Tim Unsworth, called Racism and Religion: Partners in Crime? This article was published in Salt of the Earth Magazine, 1997. In the American Catholic history, we find horrible racial treatment. Unsworth describes the account of a Black Priest: "At a time when priests mixed only with other priests, Tolton found himself isolated in his diocese. In 1889 he asked for a transfer to Chicago, where an all-black congregation had been worshiping in the basement of a Catholic church since 1881. He had 260 registered parishioners. Many black Catholics had left the church after they had been hurled out of white churches. After eight years in Chicago, Tolton died of sunstroke en route home from a retreat. One source said that he was rushed to a Catholic hospital where he was refused admission. He was only 44. Tolton's life encapsulated the black Catholic experience in America. Although black Catholic communities date back to before the Civil Warwhen they could be found in good numbers in Maryland, alongthe Gulf Coast, and in Floridathe record of integration is badly tainted with official indifference and racism." Additionally, segregation was not limited to the Protestant Churches: "The Catholic Church in the U.S. was hardly at the forefront in civil rights. It conformed to local normsin some places right down to segregated confessionals, not unlike Southern water fountains." "But former Common-weal editor John Deedy observes, "The American Catholic Church was about as interested in blacks in America as it was in American Indians, which was not very much." As we move over to the Protestant Christian movements in America, we find that racism knew no denominational lines and was the source of some of the worst racism in America: "As David M. Reimers writes in White Protestantism and the Negro, "Denomination mattered little, for support for the racist creed ran the gamut from urban Episcopalians to country Baptists." White Anglo-Saxon Protestant racism was often tied to anti-Catholicism and anti-Semitism. Blacks, Jews, and Catholics were all lumped together as targets of the white-robed Ku Klux Klan, a distinctly Protestant organization that boasted its own chaplains and hymns. "Never before," John Higham wrote in Strangers in the Land, "has a single society gathered up so many hatreds." We find as we look further into American religious history that it was not only the religious leaders, but the laity, that denied the black people their own individual "personhood." This was the underlying reason for segregated congregationswhite Churches and Black Churches: "Black churches emerged in the first half of the 19th century. Their be-ginnings, observes Catherine Meeks, professor of African American studies at Mercer University in Macon, Georgia, were characterized by a "dynamic of the white church's racism and the black church's resistance." Meeks says, "It was the white control of the worship [on slave-holding plantations], the inability to accept blacks as equals, and the negation of black personhood that led to the separation of the black church from the white church and to the emergence of a black religious community." Independent black churchesmost of them Baptist or Methodist"were not separating themselves from whites because they held a different doctrinal view of Christianity," notes James H. Cone of Union Theological Seminary. "Without exception, blacks used the same articles of faith and polity for their churches as the white denominations from which they separated. Separation, for blacks, meant that . . . they were rejecting racism that was based on the assumption that God created blacks inferior to whites." Have we come a long way since these days? Many of us would like to think that those days are just a part of Protestant Christian America's distant history. Well, not according to a survey done in recent years: "Even though white Protestant denominations in the 1840s split over the issue of slavery, the congregations of northern Protestants remained just as closed to blacks who moved north. The religious segregation that took shape then persists today. According to one recent poll, fewer than half of the Christians in the U.S. said they attend a church that includes anyone from another race. So, we have racism, slavery, and segregation in the Protestant Churches of the 1800's and continuing through todaywe have Joseph Smith and the Mormons fighting against slavery and racism (much less, segregationever read of a segregated Church of Jesus Christ? They have never existed). While those of African descent were delayed the Priesthood, which is not an un-biblical practice, it is certainly clear that Joseph and the Church were not racist. Moving on to the last part of your statement: Pastor Young: But they got some pressure. One of the points of pressure was an interview that Barbara Walters did with the Osmond family. And Barbara asked them, how can you justify being part of a religion that does not treat people equally. Well, a couple days later, to be exact June 9, 1978, Spencer Kimball, the leader of the Mormon Church had this "revelation from God," and he said oops, oh it's ok for African Americans now to be full participating members in the Mormon Church. Just kidding! You know, the 100 year thing, how it stood, you know, you know? Well, I have to admit this is a new one. I thought I had heard it all, but this is a new oneBarbara Walters? Come on, Pastor Youngdo you really believe that after all of the pressure that came with the 1960's and early 1970's, that the Church would fold under the pressure of Barbara Walters? This is just silly. The pressure had subsided a great deal, by that time. It was a surprise to most, due to the timing, when the leaders of the Church announced to the local leadership that the time had come to extend the Priesthood to all worthy males, regardless of lineage. This was no longer a hot issue. Charles Pyle comments on the timing of the 1978: "The pressure against the Church had mostly ceased by 1974, and this is why the announcement was such a surprise to many. Evidence of this surprise was found both within and from without the Church. For example, a class at BYU conducted a random telephone survey of Utah County residents. Of those interviewed, it was found that at least 79% did not expect a change at that time. Mario S. DePillis, writing in the New York Times, June 11, 1978, reflected: "For Mormonism's anti-black policy, a revelation was the only way out, and many students of Mormonism were puzzled only at the lateness of the hour." (Blacks and the Priesthood, 1993) The Mighty Pressure of Barbara Walters And to set the record straight, the revelation came on June 1st, 1978, as described above and in the appendix. It wasn't communicated to the local leaders until July 8 (not June 9th, as you seem to think). So the Barbara Walters special couldn't have had anything to do with it. And before we conclude on this subject, I want to address this Barbara Walters issue. I actually found a recording of this interview of Walters with Donnie and Marie Osmond (I know, I knowI couldn't believe itI couldn't believe I found this videoit's a long story). And here is the "pressure" Barbara Walters put on Donnie, Marie, and the Church of Jesus Christ (and please take notice that she does not ask the question like you say she does): "Listen, I have to ask something that I know that you have heard about and if I don't ask it, people will wonder why I didn't. And that is, in the strength of your religion, the whole business about Blacks not being allowed to be Priest in the Mormon religion. Tell me how you feel about it, and what the explanation for that is, would you Donnie?" Donnie gave a short answer, most definitely not complete or adequate, in my humble opinion. However, Barbara didn't ask a follow up question. She moved right on to another subject. It was as if, just as she prefaced the question, she asked because she needed to ask. She could have cared less at what the answer was. If she were applying pressure, she most certainly would have asked some follow up questions to dig in. Concluding on this subject, it hard to believe that anyone that has any religious/scriptural knowledge, would make the claim that the Mormons are racist or that Joseph Smith was a racist. Unfortunately, many anti-Mormon authors have indeed made the claim and many Ministers have repeated the claim to their congregations. However, it doesn't take a historian to figure out that the Church has never taught or condoned racism within the Church. In fact, it has taught against racist attitudes from the very beginning. Now, when it comes to the Priesthood, the Lord restricted it from those of Black African descent, as He had done with other groups of people in the Bible. We don't know all of the reasons why. We know that from the beginning, the Church taught that the day would come that all men, regardless of lineage, would have the opportunity to hold the Priesthood. We also know that in Catholicism and Protestantism, racist and discriminatory attitudes prevailed for a long time to the extent that the white people would worship separately from the Black peoplein different Churches. This is something you never saw in the Church of Jesus Christ. Yet, Mormons are still branded as racists. Pastor Young: These are serious to Mormons. And again they are kept out in the dark. Remember, if they even question or doubt this stuffwow, they won't get a chance to see God. That's what the Mormon officials tell them. I would like to see your source on this one! I think you became a bit over-zealous on this statement. "Mormon officials," have never said anything of the kind. We are not left out in the dark. I have studied this stuff for the last 4 years. As you can tell, by now, I am fairly well versed on the topics you are discussing (I'm no scholar or theologian, but I try to keep myself abreast of things). This is just another deceptive attempt to make Mormons look like poor brain-washed dupes that can't think for themselves. Who is left out in the dark about their own religious history, Pastor Young? Being a Protestant Christian Minister, were you aware of the polygamous practices urged by Martin Luther? Pastor Young: Mormons believe that God was once a man like you and me. He had tangible bodies, bones, flesh, the whole deal. And He climbed up the latter and God is now on a planet somewhere, and while we speak, he is procreating with his wives and cranking out spiritual babies. This is substantiated by the Mormon faith, folks. I'm not making this up. The second doctrine is that Mormons believe that we were once spiritual babies and we were kinda in this green room and when babies were conceived on this planet, the spiritual babies infiltrate the physical babies and then we start our climb up the ladder. And the goal of a Mormon is to achieve God-hood. One day, Mormon theology says, they can have their own planet, their own wives, and they'll procreate and crank out spiritual babies who in turn who will do the whole process and around and around and around we go. You are attempting to describe the doctrine known as eternal progression or theologically known as deification or theosis (the greek term meaning "to become as God is). If we remove your flippant and irreverent spin on the subject (obviously to sensationalize this), we might just find the truth about what Mormons believe. Most anti-Mormons will start with the quote by Lorenzo Snow, former leader of the Church of Jesus Christ and Prophet. He said, "As Man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become." Anti-Mormon authors, like Walter Martin and others, take this quote from Snow along with a few others and twist and contort the concept out of proportion. If you take this quote from Snow and apply it to Jesus Christ, himself (whom I think we would all agree is God, even the Son of God), there should be no problem on your part, from a biblical perspective. This is simple to explain and to understand. The Bible and Deification We can turn to 1 John 3:2 for an understanding that we can become "like Him," referring to Christ. Paul tells us in Romans 8:14-18 that we can become "heirs of God, even joint-heirs with Christ." So, according to Paul, we can become an inheritor or beneficiary, along with Christ, of all that God, the Father has. Paul even goes as far to say that we "may be also glorified together," with Christ. And then of course we can go to John 10:34 to when Christ, who is quoting and agreeing with David in the Psalms, says "Ye are gods," of course, pointing our divine potential, being God's creations and His children. Of course none of this is possible without the work of Christ and his atoning sacrifice. But the point of this is that Lorenzo Snow's statement may appear at the surface to be pretty incredulous, however, when you dig into what has been revealed to us in the Bible, it becomes understandable and real. "As man now is, God once was. As God now is, man may become." God, speaking of Jesus, became man. And we, God's children, may become like Jesus Christ. This is absolutely biblical. Heck, throughout the New Testament, we are being commanded to be more like God, to be more like Jesus. That is the purpose of this like, basicallyto become like God. Of course we can't do that without Christ, Himself. Now, with this as an overview, I would like to address your statement more specifically. Your statement is, most certainly, not substantiated by the Church of Jesus Christ. We do not believe that God is "cranking out spiritual babies," somewhere "on a planet," with "his wives." You won't find this in our scripture and it's not what we believe. Allow me to explain what we do believe. We believe that we are all children of God, literallyspiritually. That means that God is the Father of our spiritsso, thusyes, we believe we were spiritually created by God (as opposed to being "cranked out") before we were born on this earth. Now, once again, Pastor Young, you should understand this, since it is clearly taught in the Bible. More From the Bible Paul teaches in Romans 8:16 that we are God's children. Hebrews 12:9 tells us that God is the "Father of spirits." Acts 17:28 tells us we are literally the "offspring" of God. So, yes, our spirits were created by Godlong ago, before this world was created. There are several scriptures in the Bible that refer to this pre-earthly existence of spirits (Job 38:4-7, Jeremiah, 1:5, Revelation 12:4,7-9). How did God actually create our spirits? We don't know. One could also askhow did God actually create the earth? We really don't know. But, the fact remains that our spirits were indeed created, thus, God is the Father of our sprits. However, I can confidently say that the LDS does not teach, nor do I believe that our spirits are "cranked out." (What a poor decision it was use words like this) God and His Physical Body Now, let's address the anthropomorphism (physicality) of Godor the corporeal nature (having a physical body) of God. I use these terms because they will be used in some of the sources I use below and I want to ensure you understand what they are. You may very well know these terms alreadyI don't want you to think I am insulting your intelligence, because I am not. The Church of Jesus Christ does indeed teach that God, the Father, has a body of flesh and bones (as does Jesus Christ), although a perfected and glorious one, unlike our current body. Now, I know this is runs counter to your beliefs (presumably, your beliefs are that God is only a spiritnot tangible, no form, not made up of matter), but it is certainly not un-biblical, nor is it any different from what the primitive Christian Church taught back in the 1st, 2nd, 3rd centuries. We can find references to the physicality of God throughout the Bible and the early Christian Church clearly taught that God had a body (anthropomorphic or corporeal). It wasn't until Greek philosophy, specifically the teachings of Plato and his adherents, had crept into the Christian Church, that the mysterious God without body, parts and passions, was indoctrinated. This concept of God, is most clearly derived from Greek, neo-platonic, philosophical teachings. The Bible and God's Physicality Let's look to the Bible first to identify how God is portrayedwith or without a physical body. And let's start from the beginning, in Genesis. "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." (Genesis 1:26-27 KJV) I don't think any Christian would argue with the clear statement in this passage, that we are created in the "image" of God. Now, the key is to determine what is meant by the word "image." Well, this isn't very difficult. Take any English Thesaurus and look up the word "image," you will find the following words: Appearance, persona, impression, vision, view, representation, figure, form, likeness, illustration, reflection, copy. This makes it crystal cleareverything about us, especially our physical body, was created in the image of Godin the likeness of God, in the reflection of God, in the representation of God, in the persona of God, in the form of God. To take this one step further, let's take a look at the Hebrew translation. The Hebrew word used here is bara, which literally translated to english, means "form." Maybe it would be helpful to see how the writer of the book of Genesis, who is Moses, uses the same word (Hebrew word bara) in another verse. Let's look a couple of chapters later in the book of Genesis: "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, after his image; and called his name Seth." (Genesis 5:3) |