05.25.09
Book of Mormon Analysis – Part 1
During the last Book of Mormon thread I realized I couldn’t interact very well with the LDS points cited from internal evidence due to my own lack of in-depth study of the book. While I haven’t wanted to do a detailed analysis (because I don’t believe it’s inspired and I would rather be studying the scriptures), I now sense the Lord leading me to study it and blog my observations for the purpose of “casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:5). I am beginning a systematic study and have just concluded the first book of Nephi. My purpose here is to document my own personal observations and to provide more reasoning from internal evidence for why I personally reject its claim to be inspired. I realize LDS may disagree with my conclusions, but I look forward to continuing to discuss our disagreements in a respectful manner. I hope that my LDS readers will also recognize that I have been hearing you in previous threads as you have asked me to engage your canon. That’s what I am now trying to do.
1 Nephi – Observations
Themes:
Personal revelation is a consistent, prevailing theme of this book. Nephi’s father, Lehi, was a “visionary man” who had dreams and saw visions. Because he believed all the words of his father and desired to see the things his father saw (11:5-6), Nephi was granted visions and dreams from the Spirit as well. His brothers (Laman, Lemuel, and Sam) were unbelieving and hardened. They were often stirred up to anger against Nephi and Lehi. Implicit in his brothers’ rebellion is an indictment against all who would reject the visions and revelations of self-proclaimed prophets. Strong, controlling measures are taken with those who do not conform. For example, when his brothers grow angry with Nephi and try to throw him into the sea he declares that God will smite anyone who lays a hand on him (17:48). He is then directed by the Lord to stretch out his hand over his brothers for God to “shock” them (17:53). Nephi stretches out his hand and the text says God “did shake them” and the brothers then believe that the Lord is with Nephi.
Interwoven throughout this book is the prevailing theme of the great abominable church – that great whore of all the earth that has “kept back” plain and precious truths of the gospel which will be restored in the latter days. With all the imagery of Rev. 17, this church is described as the mother of harlots and abominations, whose founder is the devil, who gathers together multitudes upon the face of all the earth, among all the nations of the Gentiles, to fight against the Lamb of God (14:10-13). It is prophesied that God’s wrath will be poured out upon this great and abominable church and then God will fulfill his promises with his covenant people.
Doctrines:
There are several doctrinal concerns I had with this book.
1) Individual personal revelation is tied to feelings (1 Nephi 17:45, 55). There is no warning of other spirits or instruction to “test the spirits, whether they are of God” (I John 4:1).
2) The Holy Spirit tells an individual to kill someone (1 Nephi 4:10-18). While I realize that God instructed the nation of Israel to destroy wicked nations, there is no example in scripture that I can think of where the Holy Spirit tells an individual to kill another individual. Also, Nephi has no legal authority to kill Laban. I just find this story creepy on many levels and there are some scary implications of this view of personal revelation.
3) The Bible is described as missing many plain and precious truths of the gospel (1 Nephi 13:20-35, 14:23). In order for the Book of Mormon to be necessary, an incomplete Bible is required. Otherwise why would we need the Book of Mormon? But the Book of Mormon only describes an alleged problem. So far in my reading, I cannot see that it offers up any plain and precious truths to improve upon my understanding of the Bible’s gospel! Jesus promised that those who received Him would have everlasting life in heaven. He promised that He would preserve His words (Matt. 24:35) and that this gospel would be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations and then the end would come (Matt. 24:14). The Bible is not missing any truths necessary for salvation. The Bible says that God’s divine power has given unto us “all things that pertain unto life and godliness” (I Peter 1:3).
4) Churches that do not embrace the latter-day gospel are described as part of that great and abominable church of the devil that perverts the right ways of the Lord (1 Nephi 14:10-17). Nephi prophecies that this church will eventually be destroyed (22:13-14). In the Bible, Jesus promised that the Church He founded would continue to be built and would never be overcome by the devil (Matt. 16:18). The Bible teaches that there is only one Holy Spirit who baptizes all believers into the Church – the body of Christ – at their moment of conversion (I Cor. 12:13, Eph. 1:13-14). Jesus also promised that whenever two or three are gathered in His name He will be in their midst (Matt. 18:20). Though various types of churches are described in Revelation 2-3, Jesus walks among all of these churches (Rev. 2:1). There is no indication in Biblical prophecy of a total apostasy of Christ’s Church followed by a latter day restoration. There is no evidence in history for a total apostasy. Rather than missing any truths, there is evidence that many churches have added things. A person can return to the simplicity of the gospel by returning to the ancient writings of scripture and the simplicity of the gospel that is found in the person and work of Jesus Christ.
Oddities:
Literary Style - And it came to pass as I started studying 1 Nephi that I soon noticed a repetition of a certain phrase. And it came to pass that as I started underlining this phrase that I was exceedingly amazed. I counted 190 uses of this phrase - “and it came to pass” (along with its variations “it came to pass” and “for it came to pass”) in this short little book! There are only 22 chapters and the 2 chapters quoted from Isaiah only contain 1 use of this phrase (20:5). So if you don’t count the two chapters from Isaiah that leaves 20 chapters. 189 / 20 = 9.45 times per chapter on average! Wow! I’ve never read a book of the Bible that contained this much repetition of a phrase! It makes for choppy, repetitive reading and is very dissimilar to the smooth, rich text of inspired scripture I am so familiar with. IMO, the richest, smoothest sections of 1 Nephi are chapters 20-21 which are quoted from the inspired book of Isaiah (Isaiah 48-49). I LOVE Isaiah! It’s one of my favorite OT books.
Sam - Nephi’s brother doesn’t have a Hebrew name. This name kept leaping out at me as it seemed so out of place in the context being described. Wikipedia has the following explanation for the origins of this name:
Among LDS linguists[who?], the leading (unofficial) theory of the origin of the name “Sam” is that it is most likely a Hebrew dialectual form of “Shem“[citation needed]. The attributed dialect in this case would either be from the dialect of Lehi’s tribe Manasseh, or from the prevalentEphrathite culture of his family[citation needed], if indeed the dialects of these two tribes were different at all. Some[who?] consider the name “Sam” to be of Arabic origin[citation needed] (BoM Arabic سامSām)[original research?]. [1]
Fiery flying serpents (17:41) – Wow. I never heard the flying part before. (Maybe that’s one of the parts that is missing from the Bible??) While I don’t think this would impact my view of the gospel, it would definitely add some flair to this Old Testament story! (Numbers 21:6-8, Deut. 8:15)
Compass (16:10, 18:12)– Did they even have compasses in 600 BC??
Steel (16:18) – How about steel?
Geography/Archeology - I’ve often heard LDS explain the lack of archeological corroboration as being due to the status of New World Archeological research. But what about Old World geography and archeology? These studies have been going for a long time now and have corroborated many details in the Biblical accounts. What about these places called Shazer (16:13), Nahom (16:34), Bountiful (17:5), and the sea Irreantum (17:5)? The details were so vague – it was really hard to tell where Nephi and company were and where they were going. From a quick Google search and a scan of FARMS research I can see that a lot of Mormon apologetic work has gone into substantiating these places, but I’m curious – can anyone direct me to any non-Mormon sources that substantiate these places?
Messianic Prophecies (10:7-11) – Lehi’s Messianic prophecies are more detailed than any of the OT prophecies combined! They seemed to be coming right out of the NT accounts.
The Church and Israel (13:20-35, 14:23, 22:13)– why are there references to “the church” in 600 BC before the mystery of the church was even revealed? The Old Testament never makes reference to the church. Paul explains that the church was a mystery hidden from past ages (Eph. 3:3-12). The concept of the church fulfilling God’s promises to literal Israel was typical of 19th century reformed theology, but not spoken about by the Hebrew prophets of old.
Methought Thou Durst Sufficeth – It’s odd to me that a book allegedly translated in the 19th century would be written in 16th century language. There were some words and phrases I would have liked to look up in a lexicon, but of course, there is no lexicon for the Book of Mormon.
Genealogies – There are no genealogies either. I wanted to do a study on how Nephi was a descendant of Joseph, but unfortunately Nephi appears very unlike his Hebrew cousins in the Old Testament who thrived on detailing their genealogical records. Nephi explained why he did not write his genealogy (6:1-6). He said it was written on the records of his father and he desired, instead, the room to write of the things of God. Further, he stated that he would command his seed not to write their genealogies on the plates either. Sorry, but the thought that came to my mind was “Now that’s convenient!” No way to trace these people to anything anywhere in any historical or Biblical record. As for his father’s records – Lehi prophesied that “these plates of brass should go forth unto all nations, kindreds, tongues, and people who were of his seed. Wherefore, he said that these plates of brass should never perish; neither should they be dimmed any more by time” (5:18-19). So, my question is: where are these plates of brass with Lehi’s genealogical records that were never to be dimmed by time?
Skin Color (13:15) – Nephi compares the “exceedingly fair and beautiful” white skin of the Gentiles to his own people, the Hebrews. However, prior to the dispersion, the Hebrews would not have been very fair and white. Also, contrary to the racism of the 19th century, God has never equated “fair and beautiful” with white skin. In the most graphic love story in the Bible, the ravishing beauty described is a black woman (Song of Solomon 1:5).
* * * * *
Okay, this concludes my observations for now. I also wanted to share a very interesting observation I found in the blogosphere:
1 Nephi 2:7 Lehi and Nephi Break Levitical Code and Establish Themselves as False Prophets
This blogger makes a very strong point about how Lehi and Nephi broke the Levitical code in making sacrifices in 1 Nephi 2:7 and 7:22. As he points out, “No pious Jew during the reign of Zedekiah would ever have done this. It was expressly forbidden in Leviticus” (Leviticus 17:1-9). I don’t see that any LDS have responded to this blogger’s very strong points. Leviticus 17:1-9 is very clear in establishing one place for the offering of sacrifices and commanding that anyone offering sacrifices and burnt offerings outside the tabernacle was to be cut off from among the Israelites. I’m very curious to hear the LDS response to this.
1. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sam_(Book_of_Mormon) on May 24, 2009.
05.17.09
My New Favorite Worship Song
05.16.09
How The World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind (and Evidences for the Resurrection)
The media seems eager to publish any reports of people losing faith in God, but I haven’t heard anything in the news about the famous Sir Anthony Flew’s about-face. Apparently release of his book “There Is No A God: How The World’s Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind ” was even delayed in the secularized country of Britain.
While his opponents (including Richard Dawkins) are claiming he is senile, he now says, “I simply had to go where the evidence took me. It’s Aristotle’s principle. Some of the principles from Intelligent Design were helpful, but the biggest argument was Aristotle’s cosmology.” [ref]
While Anthony Flew has made a complete reversal of his beliefs, he still objects to the central claims of Christianity, namely, the divinity of Jesus Christ and the resurrection. Anthony Flew used to disagree with Christian professor and apologist, Dr. Gary Habermas, over the existence of God and Anthony Flew has now changed his mind. Will Flew ever concede that Habermas’ evidence for the resurrection is just as compelling? The apostle Paul claimed that Christianity was dependent upon historical facts:
And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins
(I Cor. 15:17).
Paul also invited investigation into the historical events of Christianity by citing living witnesses:
3For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures
5And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
6After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
7After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
8And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time
(I Cor. 15:3-8).
So, even with all the efforts of people like Bart Ehrman to undermine the reliability of the Bible, is there still compelling historical evidence for the resurrection? I would like to invite you to take some time to watch a lecture given by Dr. Gary Habermas to college students at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill on April 11, 2007.
In this lecture Habermas presents historical and textual evidence for early, eyewitness resurrection reports. He does not start with the premise that the Bible is true, therefore the resurrection must be true. Instead he uses the minimal facts argument – using only evidences that 95% of critics concede. Taking these minimal sources of evidence he argues persuasively for the reality of the resurrection. Once a skeptic himself, Habermas is now a seasoned defender of the faith who did his doctoral dissertation on the topic of the resurrection at a secular university. He engages and debates regularly with skeptics. I think you will benefit from making the time to watch the following lecture (it’s about an hour and a half). In the first 4-5 videos he presents his case and then he responds to students’ questions in the last couple of videos. This is not an exhaustive argument but will provide a good launching point for further investigation.
Historical and Textual Evidence for the Early, Eyewitness Resurrection Reports:
Part I Part II Part III Part IV Part V Part VI Part VII
Another video I would recommend is the new Lee Strobel documentary “The Case For Faith.” I saw it on the shelf at my local video store this week and rented it. In this video Strobel interviews Christians and Biblical scholars who respond to emotional objections to Christianity by answering the two frequently cited objections: “Why is Jesus the only way to God?” and “How could a loving God exist if there is evil and suffering in the world?” I liked everything about this video except for the brief interviews with Rick Warren. I’m not sure why he was interviewed for this. I guess because he is a big name.
05.09.09
The Role of the Mind in Spiritual Discernment
(Special Note: Please believe that I am writing this post very prayerfully and seeking to convey love and a spirit of humility even in the hard things I write. Please ponder it prayerfully and in humility as well.)
Because Satan is the father of lies and a master deceiver, Christians must continually renew their minds in the truth in order to combat his lies and overcome deception. Christians are commanded, “Think on things that are true” (Phil. 4:8), and “Be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God” (Romans 12:2). Jesus said the greatest commandment is to “love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37).
This brings me to a couple questions I have for Latter-day Saints:
What role does the mind play in the LDS spiritual discernment process concerning the Book of Mormon? Are LDS investigators/members encouraged to fully engage their mind in the process of discerning the truth of the Book of Mormon?
I ask this because of the following facts that speak to my mind that the book is not of Him:
- Contrary to the historical and archeological evidences for the Bible; the people, places, and events in the Book of Mormon are not true. In other words, they are not historical. The Book of Mormon is not recognized by any reputable source outside of Mormonism as a legitimate historical record of the early Americas. As one BYU professor put it: “No one has found any inscriptional evidence for, or material remains that can be tied directly to any of the persons, places or things mentioned in the book” [1]. Archeology has not only failed to provide any tangible proof of the Book of Mormon’s historicity, it has created many problems for it. Many LDS are leaning towards an “inspired fiction” view, or are becoming New Order Mormons, or are leaving Mormonism.
- The Book of Mormon contains numerous parallels to nineteenth century thoughts/issues and incongruities with ancient Jewish records. [2]
- Despite it’s apparent general orthodoxy, a literal reading of the book uncovers an “impossible gospel,” especially when used in conjunction with the D&C, as demonstrated at this link here.
- The “translation” process of the Book of Mormon involved an occult method of divination using a seer stone in a hat by someone who used that same same seer stone to hunt for buried treasure and who died with his Jupiter talisman in his pocket.
- Other “translations” by that same individual have been demonstrated to be frauds [3, 4].
- Other uses of the seer stone by the same individual have been demonstrated to be frauds in a court of law [5].
- DNA evidence has proven that Native Americans are not descended from Israelites. Another change has already been made to the Book of Mormon introduction to account for this problem. Instead of being the “principal ancestors” of American Indians, Lamanites are now……“among the ancestors of the American Indians.”
- Other religions have spiritual books and subjective tests for determining their truth such as the Divine Principle of the Unification Church or The Divine Book of Holy and Eternal Wisdom of the Shakers.
- Other religions have had eye-witnesses for their holy books. If the Book of Mormon witnesses are to be trusted, we should also consider the eleven witnesses who claimed they handled ancient plates that God gave to James Strang [6]
- This list is by no means exhaustive, but these are a few examples.
Finally, and most importantly, the Book of Mormon does not contain any of Mormonism’s distinct doctrines. The Book of Mormon test, therefore, is not a valid method for testing the truth of the Mormon religion. You cannot test the truth of a religion by studying a book that does not contain any of that religion’s unique doctrines. We don’t find anything in the Book of Mormon about the pre-existence, celestial marriage, plurality of Gods, that men can become Gods, that God is an exalted man, baptism for the dead, etc.
With the exception of passages that convey an “impossible gospel,” and some other anomalies, the general teaching of the book is pretty orthodox. We may not be able to figure out the geography of the book, but we can find the Trinity (Ether 3:14, II Nephi 31:21, III Nephi 11:27, etc.), the teaching that God is a spirit (Alma 18:26-28, 31:15), and the doctrine of hell/everlasting torment (2 Ne. 9: 19, 26; 28:23). Ironically, the Book of Mormon says that the teaching that there is no hell is a false teaching from the devil (2 Nephi. 28:21-22).
The Bible tells us to test the spirits. I believe the spirit attached to the Book of Mormon is warm, enticing, and seductive. Once you’re drawn in and submitted to that spirit, you’re hooked. If you ever doubt some of the other truth claims of Mormonism or the other spirits within Mormonism you are drawn back to that warm, enticing experience with the Book of Mormon, but the Book of Mormon does not teach Mormonism! This is a very great deception!
In order to overcome demonic deception, we are commanded to have our loins girded with truth (Eph. 6:14). We cannot submit to just any spirit that manifests itself no matter how good it makes us feel. Every religion has spirits that feel good, but the Holy Spirit is never disconnected from truth. How do we know what is truth? Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” (John 17:17). The Word of God is the sword of the Holy Spirit (Eph. 6:17); this sword pierces through deception and is the discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart (Heb. 4:12). We must worship God in spirit AND in truth (John 4:24).
The Bible warns us that people will be deceived by demonic spirits in the latter days and that these spirits will be enticing:
“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (1 Timothy 4:1).
Interestingly, the Book of Mormon teaches that anything that invites or entices to do good is of God:
That which is of God inviteth and enticeth to do good continually; wherefore, every thing which inviteth and enticeth to do good, and to love God, and to serve him, is inspired of God (Moroni 7:13).
Contra Moroni 7:13, the Bible describes Satan’s subtle deception appearing as light:
It is no great thing if [Satan’s] ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works (2 Cor. 11:15).
When I read the introduction to the Book of Mormon, where Joseph Smith describes his visit by the deceased Book of Mormon person, Moroni, this scripture verse popped into my mind:
“Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light”
(2 Cor. 11:14)
The Bible warns us not to accept the devil’s subtle deception that appears to be from God:
“But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ. For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him” (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).
We are all vulnerable to the deception of demonic spirits. Demonic spirits are working 24/7 to deceive, distract, and destroy people. None of us are inoculated from their attacks. I would submit, however, that we play into their deception when we disconnect our mind from our emotions in the discernment process. I think this is why investigators and members are not encouraged to consider objective truth when examining the Book of Mormon. They are encouraged to seek and maintain a spiritual testimony that the book is true regardless of objective evidence to the contrary.
“Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men”
(1 Corinthians 14:20)
In closing, I would like to remind my readers of I Peter 3:15: “be ready always to give an answer [apologia] to every man that asketh you a reason [logos] of the hope that is in you.” “Two key words are central to Peter’s meaning: apologia and logos. The word apologia means ‘to defend something,’ for example, offering positive arguments for and responding to negative arguments against your position in a courtroom. It is important to recognize that this is exactly how the apostle Paul did evangelism (Acts 14:15-17; 17:2, 4, 17-31; 18:4, 19:8). He persuaded people to become Christians by offering rational arguments on behalf of the truth of the gospel…The word logos means ‘evidence or argument which provides rational justification for some belief’… Peter is saying that we are to be prepared to give rational arguments and good reasons for why we believe what we believe, and this involves the mind. Peter’s reference to gentleness and reverence implies that we are to argue but not be argumentative.”[7] Let’s all keep this scripture in mind as we discuss this post.
References:
1. David J. Johnson, “Archaeology,” Encyclopedia of Mormonism, p. 62-63.
2. Alexander Campbell, “Delusions: An Analysis of the Book of Mormon With an Examination of Its Internal and External Evidences, and a Refutation of Its Pretences To Divine Authority,” The Restoration Movement Pages (1832).
5. Court Records When these records were first discovered, Hugh Nibley said “If this court record is authentic it is the most damning evidence in existence against Joseph Smith.” Mormon scholar, F. W. Kirkham, said “If such a court record confession could be identified and proved, then it follows that his believers must deny his claimed divine guidance which led them to follow him” (as cited by L. Aubrey Gard, Mormonism: A Way That Seemeth Right, p.33). The court record has been proven to be authentic.
6. “History and Succession,” The Original Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Strangite)
7. J. P. Moreland, Love Your God With All Your Mind: The Role of Reason in the Life of the Soul, pp. 51-52.
05.03.09
The Unavoidable Triunity of God
Recently on another blog, the assertion was made that the doctrine of the Trinity is merely the result of man-made creeds. Since this seems to be a common statement from LDS, I have posted the central thoughts I gave in response.
I heartily agree that we should not base our beliefs on creeds or other things written by men. Ancient creeds are not used in churches of which I have been a part. However, I do believe in many of the general ideas expressed by them—particularly a Trinitarian view of God. Is this because I feel some allegiance to the words or ideas of the past? Definitely not—I utterly reject (on the basis of Scripture) various other teachings of that and other eras. Rather, the reason I believe God is Triune is that I find a few basic facts overwhelmingly supported by Scripture.
Three unavoidable facts:
1. There is only one God.
(For example, see Deut. 4:35 and 6:4; Isaiah 43:10, 44:6, 44:8, and 45:5-6; Mark 12:29-32; John 17:3; and I Timothy 2:5.)
2. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all referred to and presented as God.
(For example, see John 1:1 with 1:14, John 8:58 with Exodus 3:14, John 20:28, II Corinthians 3:17, Titus 2:13 and II Peter 1:1 [Greek grammar in both verses requires “God” and “Savior” to both refer to Jesus Christ], Hebrews 1:8-9 with Psalm 45:6-7, and Revelation 1:8, 1:11, 1:17-18, and 22:12-16 with Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, and 48:12.)
3. The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all referred to and presented as separate Persons.
(For example, see Matthew 24:36, John 14:28, and John 14:16-17.)
There are myriad other biblical passages that could be cited for each. The ones linked above are just a representative few.
I imagine people during the early centuries of the church would have had to wrestle with these same three facts. I see no alternative explanation that takes into account all three. When various groups throughout history have rejected the Trinity, they have had to deny one of them. Modalists, for example, have denied #3, whereas Unitarians and Arians have denied #2. As best I can tell, LDS reject the Trinity based on a denial of #1. This is a difficult position to hold; fact #1 is overwhelmingly supported by both Old and New Testaments. Monotheism is not only specifically demanded by numerous passages in both Testaments; it is a foundational presupposition of all the biblical books. There are certainly other gods frequently mentioned in the Bible (e.g., Baal), but both the Old and New Testaments specify that those beings were actually demons/devils (e.g., Deut. 32:17, Psalm 96:5, and I Cor. 10:20).
It seems to me that the main biblical passages used to support a belief in multiple gods are Psalm 82:1-7 and John 10:33-36, the latter quoting the former. However, a “plural gods” interpretation of these passages is, I believe, very unsupportable. Since these seem to be the main verses used by LDS to support their views on this subject, let me examine them here. Do these passages present a multiplicity of gods?
Psalm 82:6 refers to unjust human judges.
Verses 1-3 of Psalm 82 show clearly that God is speaking to unjust human judges. For example, compare the crimes of the “gods” of Psalm 82–
How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy (Psalm 82:2-3, emphasis added).
with the actions of human magistrates in Lev. 19:15, Prov. 18:5, and Isaiah 1:23–
Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards: they judge not the fatherless, neither doth the cause of the widow come unto them (Isaiah 1:23, emphasis added).
Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour (Lev. 19:15, emphasis added).
It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment (Prov. 18:5, emphasis added).
The “gods” of Psalm 82 exactly fit these descriptions of human judges/magistrates. These themes appear frequently throughout the Old Testament and are always attributed to humans.
Further, this is not the only instance in which the word elohim (“gods”) refers to judges. Elohim is used very certainly for human judges in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9 and probably also in Exodus 22:28.
Note also that the “gods” of Psalm 82 “die like men [adam]” (82:7). Death happens to mortals. I have seen it argued that because the death of the “gods” is said to be “like men,” they must not actually be men themselves. However, Hosea uses “like men” to describe the actions of those who are men themselves:
But they [the men of Judah and Israel] like men [adam] have transgressed the covenant… (Hosea 6:7, emphasis added).
John 10:35-36 requires us to understand the “gods” of Psalm 82 as humans.
When Jesus uses Psalm 82 in combating the rabbis’ charges of blasphemy, His whole argument rests on the assumption that the “gods” were actually humans at the very time they were being called “gods.” The Jews had been complaining (10:33) that “thou, being a man, makest thyself God (emphasis added).” If the “gods” were not actually men at the very time they were being “called” gods, then Jesus’ argument does not make sense in relation to the charge against Him.
Secondly, Jesus’ argument depends upon a huge qualitative gap between Jesus and the “gods.” The argument bears a very similar construction to other arguments made by both Jesus and Paul: “If [this lowly fact], then how much more [this greater fact].”
Compare Jesus’ teaching on faith in God for provision in Matthew 6:30:
“Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field [lowly fact], which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, shall he not much more clothe you [much greater fact], O ye of little faith?”
Note the huge qualitative gap between “grass” and “you” (his followers). When Jesus describes Himself as the one “whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world,” He is setting Himself apart as the how much more example by contrasting Himself with the subjects of Psalm 82:
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came [lowly fact]…Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God [much greater fact]? (John 10:35-36, emphasis added)
There is a huge qualitative distinction between Jesus and the ones “unto whom the word of God [merely] came.”
Finally, Jesus did not say that these humans actually were gods or that God made them gods. Rather, He said they were called gods. Indeed, the Greek word translated “called” is usually translated “said” and never means “made.” Similarly, nothing in this verse indicates that God made Jesus a god, either. The word “sanctified” (the Father “hath sanctified” Jesus) only indicates that Jesus was set apart or devoted for a sacred purpose (see lexicon) like the priests in the Old Testament.
It should be noted that Jesus was not denying His own Deity. Rather, He was halting a charge of blasphemy. Numerous other passages in the same book (John) specifically ascribe Deity to Jesus. Of perhaps more importance to LDS, numerous passages in John specifically identify Him with the very God of the Old Testament (versus just “a god”). (See John 1:19 and 1:23 with Isaiah 40:3-11, John 1:29 with Isaiah 40:9, John 2:11 with Isaiah 40:5, John 8:58-59 with Exodus 3:14, John 10:11 with Isaiah 40:10-11, John 12:41 with Isaiah 6:1-4, etc.).
I believe the Triunity of God is an unavoidable conclusion—not because a creed tells me so, but because the Scripture gives overwhelming testimony to three basic facts. Perhaps not all of my LDS readers reject #1. If not, what is your position? If you do reject #1 (which technically results in polytheism), how do reconcile this with, and support it from, the Bible?
05.01.09
Should We Dwell on Similarities?
I think this article is good food for thought for Christians who are seeking to witness to Latter Day Saints.
Should We Dwell On Similarities?
By Bill McKeever
In recent years some within the Christian and Mormon community have been espousing a method of mutual understanding that urges dialogue revolving around common ground rather than discussions that make a clear distinction between Mormonism and the Christian faith. To imply that a Mormon could be wrong and run the risk of offense is considered by many in this camp as anathema. I admit I have my concerns about this new approach.
Am I surprised to hear Mormons expressing their appreciation to Christians who refrain from making them answer the hard questions? Not at all. No doubt many LDS like this new approach because it protects them from hearing things about their faith that may eventually cause them to rethink their positions.
However, it is apparent that not all Mormons agree with this new paradigm. Joseph Fielding McConkie, the son of Mormon Apostle Bruce McConkie (1915-1985), has been critical of Mormons who choose to dwell on similarities rather than on those things that make Mormonism unique.
On November 5, 2005, McConkie spoke at the Joseph Smith Symposium in Palmyra, New York. The title of his talk was “Two Churches,” an expression taken from 1 Nephi 14:10 that reads, “Behold there are save two churches only; the one is the church of the Lamb of God, and the other is the church of the devil.”
Like his father, McConkie makes no pretense that he believes all professing Christian churches outside of the LDS Church fall within the parameters of the church of the devil. It is no secret that McConkie and I rarely agree on doctrinal issues but in this case, I think my fellow brothers and sisters in Christ need to listen carefully to three comments he makes:
1. “Perhaps we need to rethink the idea of seeking common ground with those we desire to teach. Every likeness we identify leaves them with one less reason to join the Church. When we cease to be different we cease to be.”
2. “Truth, however, is more important than harmony.”
3. “Any time we declare something to be true, we have picked a fight with that which is untrue… It is as certain as the night following the day that we will never be able to declare our message without opposition or without giving offense to some.”
I happen to agree with McConkie regarding the above points (though, of course, for different reasons). Shallow conversations that fail to define our unique positions do nothing to compel Mormons to see the importance of biblical teaching over “latter-day revelation” that tends to contradict it. While I am a strong proponent of displaying respectful behavior towards members of the LDS Church, I find it delusional to think that we can ignore the necessary message of the gospel and still somehow call this evangelism. At some point in their lives, Mormons need to confront the issues that separate their error from orthodoxy.
It is a temptation for Christians to take the easy path and merely be “friendly.” But is friendship alone really being “loving” in such cases? If we really believe Mormonism’s teachings are so egregious that its followers will not be able to enjoy eternity in the presence of our God and Savior, should we not do our best to present those differences?
Do we run the risk of offending some when we do this? Absolutely. The Gospel, by nature, is offensive to those who disagree. If a person is offended by the Gospel, it is proof that they need to hear what it has to say.
Reference:
http://www.mrm.org/similarities
My Current Fave Worship Song
Might have something to do with their Australian accents, but I sure do love the Newsboys.
My Favorite Worship Songs
Immortal, Invisible
Be Thou My Vision
Grace Greater Than Our Sin
My Jesus, I Love Thee
Take My Life and Let It Be
Be Still My Soul
He Leadeth Me
It Is Well With My Soul
On Christ the Solid Rock I Stand
More Love to Thee
How Great Thou Art
Holy, Holy, Holy
Great is Thy Faithfulness
The Church’s One Foundation
Revive Us Again
Breathe on Me, Breath of God
When I Survey
Have Thine Own Way, Lord
Your Love Broke Through
Rushing Wind
Majesty
Be Unto Your Name
Salvation Belongs to our God
We Will Glorify
No Higher Place (Down At Your Feet)
Lord, You Are More Precious than Silver
All in All
How Great Are You, Lord
Forever Grateful
The Potter’s Hand
In Christ Alone
Wonderful, Merciful Savior
Great Is the Lord (and Most Worthy of Praise)
Praise You
Worthy, You Are Worthy
Lord of All
Bow the Knee
His Life for Mine
O, the Blood of Jesus
What are some of your favorites?
