Scriptures

Chapter ten of the Teachings of George Albert Smith is about the scriptures and the encouragement to use them.  Whenever the Scriptures are the topic, one of the most visible lines of demarcation between Mormonism and Christianity appears seeing that Mormonism includes three other books as Scripture; namely, the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

This has also been one of the most hotly debated topics between Mormons and Christians.  Understandably so.  Nothing influences people’s beliefs more than what they consider the word of God.

Over the years, many Christians have listed many problems they have with LDS Scriptures. They have cited the lack of archaeology proof for the Book of Mormon; its similarity in many places with the King James Version; the Book of Abraham in reality being a funeral Egyptian text to name just a few.

One thing that I always have found curious is that the books of Abraham and Moses in the Pearl of Great Price are supposedly the correct version of the similar accounts in Genesis.  If that is correct, why didn’t Jesus point that out when he walked the earth?  We know that the Genesis account as is contained in the Bible is the one that the Jews of Jesus’ day used.  We know that from the Dead Sea Scrolls and other sources. If that account was as corrupted as indicated by the Pearl of Great Price, why didn’t Jesus correct it?  I suppose somebody could claim that Jesus’ correction was one of the plain and precious truths that Mormonism claims were taken out of the Bible.  But that is very difficult to believe.  Just think of how Jesus’ Jewish opponents could have used that to incite the crowds!  “He’s changing our Scriptures!”  It’s difficult to believe that all traces of that could be wiped out, not only from the Bible, but from ancient history.

I doubt, however, that this argument will have much effect on most Mormons.  After all, accepting books as Scripture are more a matter of belief than reason.

Over the years I have found a better way of showing the differences between the Bible and LDS Scriptures.  It is emphasizing the unique and glorious message of the Bible that salvation and my living with heavenly Father is entirely, completely, 100% God’s gift.  That we don’t have to do one single thing to receive that – that we can’t do anything to receive it.  When it comes to being accepted by God the only thing that counts is what Jesus did for me. The more I emphasize that, the more I hear from Mormons wanting to learn more.  That shouldn’t surprise me.  Because, as the Bible says, that gospel message is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe.

Covenants

One thing that Lesson 19 of the Gospel Doctrines Class covers is the baptismal covenant described in Mosiah 18 of the Book of Mormon.  In that connection the teacher’s manual contains the following quote from President Joseph Fielding Smith.  “A covenant is a contract and an agreement between at least two parties.  In the case of gospel covenants, the parties are the Lord in heaven and men on earth.  Men agree to keep the commandments and the Lord promises to reward them accordingly.”

Here again is an example of how Mormonism and biblical Christianity not only define words differently, but also view matters differently.  The word gospel literally means good news and in the Bible it refers to the very specific good news that Jesus became our substitute, fulfilled all the commandments for us, died for all our sins so that now eternal life is God’s gift to us.  The Bible, and historic Christianity, has always sharply distinguished between this good news of what God has done for us and his commands telling us what to do.  In short, the biblical gospel has nothing to do with God’s commands.  If it did that would not be good news – in light of verses like James 2:10 that state that even breaking one commandment makes us guilty of all.

Secondly, the way that the Bible describes the gospel covenant is all about what God does.  It describes not an agreement between two parties but rather a unilateral action on the part of God.  For example, Jeremiah 31:33-34 says:  ^“But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the Lord, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.  ³⁴ And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.”  There is no mention of keeping the commandments or any other action on the part of man.  God’s gospel covenant is 100% about what God does – especially his forgiving us of our sins.  That deserves the description, “good news”.

Because of that good news I know that I am worthy before God – that I am nothing less than a saint in his eyes.  Because of that good news I am eagerly looking forward to Judgment Day knowing that, solely because of what Jesus did for me, I will be eagerly welcomed by God.  Because of that good news I have no doubts that I will be living in the very presence of Heavenly Father for all eternity.  Thank you, Jesus, for doing everything for me.

One God?

Lesson 18 of the Gospel Doctrines Class covers Mosiah 12-17 of the Book of Mormon.  The lesson in the teacher’s guide is entitled “God Himself. . .Shall Redeem His People”.  This title is based on Mosiah 15:1 which states:  “And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people.”  This obviously refers to Jesus.  Verse 2 continues by saying:  “And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God. . .”  Obviously here, and in many other places, the Book of Mormon refers to Jesus as God.

That sparks many questions.  For example, when and how, according to Mormonism, did Jesus become God?  It teaches that people must have a physical body to become a god since it believes that Heavenly Father has a body.  But it also teaches that Jesus was Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament. How, then, was Jesus God before he had a body?  How could he come down already as God to redeem us?  I repeat: How and when, according to Mormonism, did Jesus become God?

Mormonism’s identification with Jesus as Jehovah (LORD) and Heavenly Father as Elohim (God) also breeds confusion. For often the Bible places those two names together to describe one person.  Just one example, “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone.  I will make him an help meet for him.” (Genesis 2:18)  Why would the Bible so frequently use LORD God as a description of one person when it is, according to Mormonism, two persons?

Or how about Isaiah 45:21?  “Who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? And there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.”  How does the Father fit into that verse if there is no God besides the LORD?

Something else that is puzzling is Mormonism’s interpretation of the passages that say there is only one God.  The most common explanation I have heard from Mormons is that this means that there is only one God whom we are to worship.  But who is that God?  Talking about Heavenly Father Gospel Principles says:  “God is the Supreme and Absolute Being in whom we believe and whom we worship.” (p. 5)

But Jesus often is referred to as the God of this world.  “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” (Spencer W. Kimball, Oct. 1977 General Conference) In a news release dated October, Elder M. Russell Ballard answered the question, do you worship Jesus Christ in your Church services, in this way:  “Anyone that visits The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is welcome and you would be, they would be impressed, totally, with the devotion and the center of our faith being Jesus Christ, the son of God. You would hear the name of Jesus Christ mentioned time after time after time. We pray in His name. We teach in His name. We have the communion, or the sacrament we call it, all in His name in remembrance of His atoning sacrifice. We partake of the bread and the water in renewing our covenants we’ve made with Him. When the meeting is concluded we close it in the name of Jesus Christ.”

It’s interesting that he doesn’t come right out and say that they worship Jesus. Some might argue that I am straining at gnats but you see the same distinction made in other places. For example, under “Worship” in True to the Faith it talks only about worshipping the Father.  One example: “As you reverently partake of the sacrament and attend the temple, you remember and worship your Heavenly Father and express your gratitude for His Son, Jesus Christ.” (p. 188)

Does Mormonism espouse both the worship of Heavenly Father and Jesus?  If so, how does that coincide with its explanation of the Bible passages that there is only one God?

These are just some of the questions that arise from Mormonism’s teaching of Jesus.

The Parable of the Prodigal Son

Of all the parables Jesus told, one of the most familiar is the Parable of the Prodigal Son recorded in Luke 15.  It is a wonderful story of God’s forgiveness as the father rushes out and welcomes home his wayward son.

But, as we place it into its context, we see that the point Jesus was really making was the joy we are to experience whenever we see a lost soul saved.  H makes that emphasis in direct response to the Pharisees’ murmuring against him.  “And the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying, This man receiveth sinners, and eateth with them.” (Luke 15:2).  In response, Jesus tells three parables about the lost – the parable of the Prodigal Son being the last of the three.  And all three emphasize the joy we are to feel when we see the lost saved.  (See Luke 15:5-7, 9-10, 22-24)

In that setting it is obvious that the complaining elder son in the Parable of the Prodigal Son represents the Pharisees.   His anger over his father throwing a feast for his brother mirrors the murmuring of the Pharisees over Jesus eating with the tax collectors and sinners.  I’m sure that the Pharisees listening to Jesus as he unfolded this parable felt as if he had hit them with a two by four over their heads!  In essence, Jesus was telling them that, instead of murmuring, they should be rejoicing that he was reaching the lost.

Therefore I found it interesting to see how Mormonism interprets this parable.  In the New Testament manual, The Life and Teachings of Jesus & His Apostles, it talks about the mercy and forgiveness of the Father.  But what I found interesting is that it talks more about the two sons than it does the father.  The point it emphasizes is that the father “did not have the younger son restored to all the privileges he had forfeited.”  He was received back but now “the farm” is gone.  “The ‘father’ himself cannot undo the effect of the foregone choice.”

In striking contrast, the older son becomes the role model.  He is described as the “more dutiful” son.  “The father consoled him with the statement: “Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine.”   In other words, for him “the farm” was not gone.  Unlike the younger son, he did not forfeit his privileges.  There is not one mention made of the Pharisees and their ungodly murmuring against Jesus.

A beautiful story of forgiveness is turned into a story of making choices.  “Every choice one makes either expands or contracts the area in which he can make and implement future decisions.  When one makes a choice, he irrevocably binds himself to accept the consequences of that choice.”  So much so, that “the ‘father’ cannot undo the effect of the foregone choice.”

The Bible teaches about a Heavenly Father who can undo the effects of foregone choices and has done so in Jesus Christ.  Through the saving work of Christ he has restored all the privileges that we have forfeited through sin.  Because of Jesus I’m looking forward to living eternally with Heavenly Father.

What a difference a “not” makes!

One of my favorite Bible passages is Romans 4:5.  “But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”  The whole context is brimming over with comforting statements reassuring us that God forgives us through faith.  For example, the very next verse says, “Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works.”  It is obvious that righteousness without works is Paul’s theme in this section.

But that is not how Joseph Smith translated it.  His translation, also called the Inspired Version by theLDSChurch, translates verse 5 this way.  “But to him that seeketh not to be justified by the law of works, but believeth on him who justifieth not the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.”  Besides having no basis for such a translation, it violates Paul’s line of thought.  In the very next chapter, for example, Paul speaks in a similar way about justifying the ungodly when he writes: “For when we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for the ungodly.”  (Romans 5:6)

This is not the only time Joseph Smith did that either.  Another beautiful example of how quick God is to forgive us is seen when the prophet Nathan comes to King David to confront him about his adultery.  After he laid in on the line and also told David that there would be earthly consequences for his sin, we read:  “And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD.  And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.”  (2 Samuel 12:13)  It’s striking how quickly Nathan reassures David of forgiveness.

But not according to Joseph Smith.  He translated it, “hath not put away thy sin that thou shalt not die.”  Once again the little word “not” changes the sense completely.  It drains it of comfort for us.  It robs God of great glory.

A lot of Mormons today shy away from statements like the following what Spencer W. Kimball wrote in his classic book, The Miracle of Forgiveness.  “It depends upon you whether or not you are forgiven, and when.  It could be weeks, it could be years, it could be centuries before that happy day when you have the positive assurance that the Lord has forgiven you.  That depends on your humility, your sincerity, your works, your attitudes.”  I don’t know why they shy away from such statements.  To me, such statements are accurately reflecting the way Joseph Smith translated the Bible.

The way Mormonism talks about forgiveness and the way the Bible speaks about it are totally opposite.  I rejoice along withSt. Paulthat God justifies the ungodly, that to the one who doesn’t work, his faith is credited as righteousness.

“No more deposition to do evil”

Lesson 16 of the Gospel Doctrine Class on the Book of Mormon covers Mosiah 4-6.  These chapters contain King Benjamin’s speech and the people’s reaction to it.  One thing they said was that the Spirit had worked a mighty change in their hearts with the result that “we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually”. (Mosiah 5:2)

My dictionary defines disposition as “a prevailing tendency, mood, or inclination”.  Therefore this says they didn’t even have an inclination to do evil; rather they were inclined to do good continually.  I think we would all agree that sin is evil.  Jesus also talked about how sin begins in our heart and thoughts.  James talks about how our desires give birth to sin.  Therefore if someone claims to have no more disposition to do evil but only good continually, isn’t it reasonable to say that they are claiming that they are no longer sinning?

I, for one, can’t make the claim that I have no more disposition to do evil but only good continually.  I’m far from being inclined to only do good.  Before I even realize I’m doing it, I think something bad about the person who doesn’t go when the light turns green because they are chatting on their cell phone. When someone cuts in line, my jaw immediately clenches as I bit my tongue trying not to say what I’m thinking.  Honestly, there is no way that I could claim for even one hour that I had no disposition for evil.

Therefore I was interested in seeing how the teacher’s guide would handle this verse.  In this regard, it asks a couple of interesting questions.  First it asks:  “how might our lives and relationships be affected if we ‘had no more disposition to do evil’?  I could maybe see that being a hypothetical question.  But reading on it’s apparent that it’s not hypothetical.  Because then it asks, “Once we have experienced a ‘might change in our hearts (Mosiah 5:2), what challenges do we face in maintaining this change?  How can we meet these challenges?”  There it talks about actually experiencing that mighty change.  This is pictured as an attainable goal! I can only assume by that that there are members of the LDS Church who right now claim that they have no more disposition to do evil but to good continually.

Until the day I die I will sin.  Until the day I die I will have dispositions to do evil.  That doesn’t make me happy.  But that is a fact of life.  It’s a fact that no matter how hard I try not to, I will still sin.  But it’s also a fact that I am not worried in the slightest that, because of this, I won’t live forever with heavenly Father.  I’m not worried about that because Jesus’ blood cleanses me completely.  I’m not worried about that because I am saved fully, completely, entirely based on what Jesus has done for us.  Because of Jesus, even though I am still in a sinful state, before God I have the status of a saint.  And that is all that counts!

 

GUILTY

That has to be one of the most earth-shattering words that could ever be directed at a person – especially when it is spoken by a judge.  We can almost see the defendant slump down as his or her family break out in tears.  This is magnified all the more when the guilty verdict results in the death penalty.

“Guilty” is the verdict that rang down on all of mankind from no less a judge than God himself.  “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”  (James 2:10)  As the footnote in the LDS edition of the Bible correctly states, “offend” means to stumble or err.  The breaking of the law in consideration is not an intentional, but an unintentional one.  It is a stumble, a mistake.  But that makes no difference.  The verdict is just as devastating.  Guilty!  “Guilty of all”.  You stumble at just one point – you break it all.  God’s commandments are a unified whole.  It only takes one pinprick to burst a balloon.  It only takes one sin to break the whole law.

And it doesn’t make any difference how much good a person did before or after – the verdict “guilty” remains.  He could have been the model citizen before and the model prisoner afterwards but he remains guilty.

But what makes matters even more sobering is the realization that James is talking hypothetically.  There has been no person who just erred once.  Reality is that we stumble and err regularly.  There are so many good things we fail to do – so many sinful thoughts, words, and actions that we end up doing.  No matter how hard we try, all we can do is dig ourselves into a deeper hole. This contrast: “offend in one point – guilty of all” makes for an airtight case.  If a person’s obedience isn’t perfect – if there is just one slip – he is guilty – guilty of all.

That’s why I am so thankful that Jesus took all my guilt and became guilty in my place – and served my sentence.  That is why I am so thankful that Jesus was perfectly obedient and God credited that perfect obedience to me.  That is why, when I think of living eternally with heavenly Father the only work that I base that on is his work for me.  “For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all.”