HOME WRITINGS ORGANIZATIONS Q & A NEWSLETTER FAQS CONTACT ABOUT BELIEFS LINKS ARCHIVE FREE BIBLE STORE
CONVERSATIONS WITH A MORMON
Mormon Doctrine Not Found In The Book of Mormon, the "Corruption" of the Bible, Deification and the ante-Nicene Fathers, Polygamy as a New Gospel, the Mormon and Christian World View
 

The Mormon Challenge

Sunday, April 30

I stumbled on your site this morning and wanted to share an honest perception. I am a Mormon. I am well versed with the doctrine of the church. Your interpretations are misleading and incorrect. I suggest that you spend more time in your bible. I would even suggest that you seek out the writings of pre-Nicene brethren of the early church which Christ formed personally while on the earth. Seek the Holy Spirit to teach you truth that is not currently contained in the Bible, but which was surely known by Peter, Paul, Timothy, James and others. I can never accept that all pertinent truth is contained within the covers of our current day Bible. I am certain that Paul, Peter, Barnabas and others had more to say then what is found in our Bible today. Certainly Christ taught them more than the few total pages credited to him. The Mormon church, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints offers the only true biblical proof. We believe in a kingdom built on prophets and apostles with Christ be
[rest of message lost during transmission]


On Doctrine Reply

Welcome to On Doctrine.
Thank you for your visit and message on the On Doctrine Contact page.

The primary reason stated by Joseph Smith for the existence of the Book of Mormon was the restoration of the gospel message that it is said to contain, the necessity of which was a result of the Bible being changed and deleted from the original by corrupt Catholic priests. Presumably these priests expunged from the biblical record every vestige of the original Mormon doctrines which it is claimed were part of the early church. These corrupt priests were very efficient at their jobs, because they apparently found and replaced every extant copy of the Scripture and every manuscript fragment which contained the original Mormon gospel message and replaced them with hand written copies representing the corrupted version of the Bible that had been created. This must be the case, because the current Mormon gospel is not found within the pages of the Bible as it is found today, which is the Bible that Joseph Smith claimed had been corrupted. The Bible is not "another testament of Jesus Christ" according to Joseph Smith, but a corrupt and crippled document having sections added that were not original and having sections removed and lost to history, resulting in a non-authoritative and confusing document, as opposed to the Book of Mormon which is considered completely accurate and authoritative over the Bible itself. I find it interesting that you recommend that I read the Bible in order to find truth when the historical position of the Mormon church has been that the truth has been removed from the Bible and falsehoods introduced.

In a time when anti-Catholic sentiment made the claims of Joseph Smith not only believable but also desirable, it was easy for him to make such a statement degrading the Bible, and when there were no resources readily available to refute the statement there was no particular compelling reason to doubt its accuracy. However, that is no longer the case. The historical record is clear that Catholic priests never expunged the Mormon gospel from the biblical record because there is no evidence whatsoever that the Mormon gospel was ever part of the early church or taught by the early church fathers. The reality is, that Joseph Smith made a false claim and stated that he received his information directly from God, which compounds the problem.

You can create your own world in which you originate the illusion that history was as you would wish it to be rather than as it actually was, but that does not change reality and it does not change the historical and manuscript evidence in relation to the biblical record. You may claim a foundation for your belief based on those statements that you hope Jesus Christ or the apostles might have said, but were not recorded, and assume represent the missing Mormon gospel message, but you are faced with the reality that you create a false reality in the process. You are faced with the fact that the Bible as it is found today is virtually unchanged from its original translations, which is admitted by Mormon scholars to be the case:
". . . no new manuscript discovery has produced serious differences in the essential story. This survey has disclosed the leading textual controversies, and together they would be well within one percent of the text. Stated differently, all manuscripts agree on the essential correctness of 99% of the verses in the New Testament. . . . It is true that the Latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textual history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess. . . Joseph Smith said that 'many important points touching the salvation of man, had been taken from the Bible, or lost before it was compiled.' (Documentary History of the Church, I, 245, 1832.) Major losses might occur by elimination of whole books rather than alterations of those admitted as canonical. Nor do subsequent changes have to be based on open changes of the writings. The forces of evil are more effective at changing the meaning of true terms and concepts than removing them."
Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, Brigham Young University, 1963, pp. 52-59.
Coupled with the fact that there is no evidence of prior books with a different message or changes in the meaning of language, the fact that the founding prophet of the Mormon church erroneously claimed otherwise creates a great problem of credibility on the part of that prophet. Additionally, since Joseph Smith produced his own translation of the Bible that he claimed was received by inspiration, one would think that those missing books and corrected language would have been included, but, sadly, he missed the opportunity to present a Bible in the form that he claimed it should have originally appeared.

However, the greatest issue that you must face is the reality that the Mormon gospel as presented in the Mormon church today is not found in the Book of Mormon and has no foundation in the Book of Mormon. You have stated the reason for this being the case, because the Mormon church today does not have its foundation in the Book of Mormon as the restoration of the gospel message, but is based on the pronouncements of the Living Prophets, beginning with Joseph Smith.

If the Book of Mormon was the necessary restoration of the gospel message requiring belief for salvation (today, salvation is defined as resurrection in the Mormon church), then why are the elements of the current Mormon gospel not found within its pages? Is the Book of Mormon the restoration of the Mormon gospel or is it not? If it is, why have the current doctrines of salvation supplanted those found in the Book of Mormon? And if not, why does the Book of Mormon exist?
"I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." [Emphasis added. Ed.]
-- Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 461
  1. There is no Priesthood in the Book of Mormon.
    a. No Aaronic priesthood
    b. No Melchizidekian priesthood
    c. Today the priestly offices are absolutely necessary, but in the Book of Mormon they don't even exist.

  2. There is no Eternal Progression in the Book of Mormon.
    a. No presumption of the possibility of attaining to godhood.
    b. No various levels of exaltation.
    c. No fathering of eternal spirits in a previous existence.

  3. There is no polygamy allowed in the Book of Mormon.
    a. Condemned in the Book of Mormon, Jacob 1:15; Jacob 2:24, 26-29; Jacob 3:5; Mosiah 11:2.
    "And now it came to pass that the people of Nephi, under the reign of the second king, began to grow hard in their hearts, and indulge themselves somewhat in wicked practices, such as like unto David of old desiring many wives and concubines, and also Solomon, his son."
    ---- Book of Mormon, Jacob 1:15.
    b. Less than ten years after publication of the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith claimed that God stated in a revelation that he justified men in the Old Testament because they were polygamous, in direct opposition to the statement of God in the Book of Mormon that they were condemned. Joseph Smith made his God into a liar by his claims regarding a revelation commanding polygamy.
    "Verily, thus saith the Lord, unto you my servant Joseph {Smith}, that inasmuch as you have inquired of my hand to know and understand wherein I, the Lord justified my servants, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; as also Moses, David, and Solomon, my servants, as touching the principle and doctrine of their having many wives, and concubines..."
    ---- Doctrine and Covenants, Sec. 132
    It can't be both ways, and given the testimony of the Book of Mormon in multiple passages, it is apparent that Joseph Smith lied about his revelation and was willing to make God into a liar in the process. But, since he also claimed the Book of Mormon was a revelation, then where does the truth of that claim rest?

  4. No temple in the Book of Mormon.
    a. No temple marriage.
    b. No sealings for time or eternity.
    c. No temple ceremonies of any kind mentioned.

  5. There is no baptism for the dead in the Book of Mormon.

  6. There is no genealogical work in the Book of Mormon.

  7. There is no escape from hell in the Book of Mormon, Alma 42:16.

  8. No second chance for a presentation of the gospel in "spirit prison," Alma 34:32-34.

  9. There are no Terrestrial, Telestial or Celestial kingdoms in the Book of Mormon
    The Telestial Kingdom being a new word coined by Joseph Smith after the Book of Mormon was written.
The problem, which is the entire point of the articles on the On Doctrine website, is that Mormon doctrine and Orthodox biblical doctrine are mutually exclusive; incompatible teachings that can have no unity within each other because they are opposites.

I am always willing to stand corrected on specific issues of fact, so if you have found that I have stated historical Mormon doctrine incorrectly, then you can present the issue with the documentation and I will consider your position. If you find that there are Mormon beliefs found in the Bible that I say are not found there, then you are also welcome to present your biblical foundation for your claims.

I have included your note below, because part of your message apparently was lost during the transmission, so I do not know what your final thoughts might have been.
The Mormon Challenge

Wednesday, May 3

Gary,

Thank you for responding to my email. First off, I respect your beliefs and I am not endeavoring to change them (I doubt that would be possible). In the same vein, I will not be moved either. I invite the open exchange of ideas. I am concerned because of the numerous misrepresentations (often honest ones) by those who claim to know the Book of Mormon and doctrines of the church. I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with the doctrines and the beliefs of the LDS church; however, when you publicly decry them, it is important that you do so with correct understanding.

First as regards our position on the Bible:
  • Joseph Smith stated that the Bible had not been preserved in its original purity: "We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly" (A of F 1:8) That is, error has occurred not only in the translation from one language to another but also in the transcription of the text from manuscript to manuscript, even in the same language. The Bible has apparently suffered mostly from omissions-it is not particularly erroneous, but many important items are missing, and this in turn leaves some parts unclear. Joseph Smith explained this further when he said, "I believe the Bible as it read when it came from the pen of the original writers. Ignorant translators, careless transcribers, or designing and corrupt priests have committed many errors."
  • Translation creates error and omission. I speak fluent English and Spanish. I speak from personal experience. Give two scholars unfamiliar with today s Bibles the same latin copy of the Bible and they will give you two different translations, oftentimes with very different meanings.
  • It is amazing just how sparse our record really is. While the four testimonies that bear witness of Christ's life do so with much power, they do not cover the greater part of his life. In Mark's story, for example, only thirty-one days are accounted for. Furthermore, in the New Testament the total sayings attributed to Christ can be read in one hour. When one considers the numerous occasions that he taught, and the times his sermons extended well into the day or the evening, we realize that only a very small portion of his teachings has survived.
  • The real gap in the New Testament accounts is the period after the resurrection. We know that at that time Christ spent forty days with his apostles forty days in which he expanded upon his word. How vital those teachings and instructions must have been! Yet they are almost totally missing from our current New Testament.
  • The epistles of the early brethren assumed a role for which they were never intended. The Gospels as we have them focus primarily on the life of Christ, on those teachings that bear witness that he is the Christ, and on his teachings about how man ought to live. They do not contain a complete presentation of the full range of gospel doctrines and principles. Generally, therefore, Christian sects have obtained many of their doctrines from the epistles. But the epistles themselves, though they contain doctrine, do so in patches and pieces. Most of them were written in response to specific needs and questions arising in specific geographical areas of the early Church.
  • Furthermore, some were quite informal or personal, and though sometimes their authors requested that they be read in church, for the most part the authors probably did not intend for their letters to be bound as scriptures. In addition, the letters often contained many items of unequal weight and importance. Basic knowledge of the gospel was presumed to exist among the early Church congregations, so details of many gospel principles were left out of the epistles. Thus, many things were only alluded to, such as baptism for the dead and the roles of the various priesthood leaders (I will mention this more later). It is this partial explanation that has caused confusion for later readers. In fact, it could be argued that this unfortunate lack of clarity of doctrine is largely responsible for many of the later divisions of belief among Christian sects.
  • One of the most important accomplishments of the Savior was the establishment of His church upon the earth. Paul taught that Christ gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ (Eph. 4:11 12).
  • When Jesus called His twelve Apostles, He laid His hands upon them, ordained them, and conferred upon them the authority to act in His name and govern His church. Peter is commonly understood to have become the chief Apostle, after the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ. Early Christians endured the challenges of persecution and hardship. Peter and his brethren had a difficult time holding the Church together and keeping the doctrine pure. They traveled extensively and wrote to one another about the problems they were facing, but information moved so slowly and the Church and its teachings were so new that heading off false teachings before they became firmly entrenched was difficult.
  • The New Testament indicates that the early Apostles worked hard to preserve the church that Jesus Christ left to their care and keeping, but they knew their efforts would ultimately be in vain. Paul wrote to the Thessalonian Saints, who were anxiously anticipating the second coming of Christ, that that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first (2 Thes. 2:3). He also warned Timothy that the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables (2 Tim. 4:3 4).
  • And Peter presupposed the falling away, or the Apostasy, when he spoke of the times of refreshing that would come before God would again send Jesus Christ, who before was preached unto you: Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began (Acts 3:19 21).
  • Eventually, with the known exception of John the Beloved, Peter and his fellow Apostles were martyred. The Apostle John and members of the Church struggled for survival in the face of horrifying oppression. To their everlasting credit, Christianity did survive and was truly a prominent force by the end of the second century A.D. Many valiant Saints were instrumental in helping Christianity to endure.
  • Despite the significance of the ministries of these Saints, they did not hold the same apostolic authority Peter and the other Apostles had received through ordination under the hands of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. When that authority was lost, men began looking to other sources for doctrinal understanding. As a result, many plain and precious truths were lost.
  • I, as will the leaders of the church, as will my fellow Mormons, stand by the Bible as scripture. The Bible does not claim to be infallible. The Bible does not claim to be the ONLY word of God. Infact, numerous scriptures within the pages of the Bible refer to other writings of the early brethren that are no longer to be had by us. I find it unbelievable and unreasonable that all the relevant teachings of the Son of God are found within the few passages attributed to Him in the Bible.
  • At the same time, we are greatful to the priests, monks, scribes and others who kept the light of the scriptures alive through the long and dreary years of the Apostacy,
  • History tells us of a great council held in A.D. 325 in Nicaea. By this time Christianity had emerged from the dank dungeons of Rome to become the state religion of the Roman Empire, but the church still had problems chiefly the inability of Christians to agree among themselves on basic points of doctrine. To resolve differences, Emperor Constantine called together a group of Christian bishops to establish once and for all the official doctrines of the church.
  • Consensus did not come easily. Opinions on such basic subjects as the nature of God were diverse and deeply felt, and debate was spirited. Decisions were not made by inspiration or revelation, but by majority vote, and some disagreeing factions split off and formed new churches. Similar doctrinal councils were held later in A.D. 451, 787, and 1545, with similarly divisive results.
  • The beautiful simplicity of Christ s gospel was under attack from an enemy that was even more destructive than the scourges and the crosses of early Rome: the philosophical meanderings of uninspired men. The doctrine became based more on popular opinion than on revelation. This period of time was called the Dark Ages. They were dark largely because the light of the gospel of Jesus Christ had been lost.
That is quite a lot and I hope that we can converse over the points above more specifically in the future. I don t want to go on to long I know you are busy. Again, the testimony of the bible is sure, Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind. We don t disagree on this. However, using the Bible as the foundation of any church has proven inadequate. The multitude of Christian denominations proves this point. All claim the Bible as their authority, all disagree on major points of doctrine especially the doctrines of Salvation. Again, I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, where there are errors, they are the errors of men. What wasn t included in the Bible? Anything? I believe a great deal was not. As I alluded above, the Bible was never intended by the original writers, spread all over Asia, writing letters and testimonies, to be a manual for church regulation and organization. It just wasn t. It was written to previously indoctrinated believers, not as a manual of indoctrination.

The basis of the Church of Jesus Christ of latter-day Saints is that authority to act in the name of Christ, as given by Christ to his Apostles was lost. It could not be restored by anyone, no matter how well meaning unless the heavens were opened and again revealed the authority, No man taketh this honour (the Priesthood or authority of God) unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was Aaron. (Hebrews 5:4). How was Aaron called? And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying . . .And take thou unto thee Aaron thy brother, and his sons with him, from among the children of Israel, that he may minister unto me in the priest s office. . .And thou shalt anoint Aaron and his sons, and consecrate them, that they may minister unto me in the priest s office. (Exodus 25:1; 28:1; 30:30). Aaron was called by revelation of the Lord through the living Prophet Moses. As crazy as it might seem, that method of calling is repeated numerous times in the Bible and then again in the New Testament. When there is no Prophet among the people, the Lord calls one and speaks to him face to face. He establishes his truths not by reason, argument and philosophy; but by revelation. Joseph Smith was called by revelation. That is my humble belief.

Now, as to doctrines of the Book of Mormon, I would like to make a few corrections to your email. First let me clarify the following. Joseph Smith stated that the Book of Mormon is the keystone of our religion. It teaches the gospel or doctrine of Christ as repetitively and clearly as any other scriptural work that salvation is in Christ, and that men and women may come unto Christ through faith, repentance, baptism, and the receipt of the Holy Ghost. (2 Ne. 31; 3 Ne. 27.) These principles weave their way through the narrative for most of the 531 pages. As a fundamental scriptural record, the Book of Mormon sets forth the fundamental doctrines of salvation, namely, what people must do to be saved. Its writers do not concern themselves with many other doctrinal matters that are taught, for example, in the Doctrine and Covenants. The Book of Mormon does not treat directly such items as degrees of glory in the hereafter, eternal marriage, or the corporeal nature of God. The Book of Mormon contains the fullness of the gospel the glad tidings concerning Jesus Christ not the fullness of gospel doctrine. The Savior defines the gospel in the following way in the Book of Mormon:
13 Behold I have given unto you my gospel, and this is the gospel which I have given unto you that I came into the world to do the will of my Father, because my Father sent me. 14 And my Father sent me that I might be lifted up upon the cross; and after that I had been lifted up upon the cross, that I might draw all men unto me, that as I have been lifted up by men even so should men be lifted up by the Father, to stand before me, to be judged of their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil 15 And for this cause have I been lifted up; therefore, according to the power of the Father I will draw all men unto me, that they may be judged according to their works. 16 And it shall come to pass, that whoso repenteth and is baptized in my name shall be filled; and if he endureth to the end, behold, him will I hold guiltless before my Father at that day when I shall stand to judge the world. 17 And he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father. 18 And this is the word which he hath given unto the children of men. And for this cause he fulfilleth the words which he hath given, and he lieth not, but fulfilleth all his words. 19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end. 20 Now this is the commandment: Repent, all ye ends of the earth, and come unto me and be baptized in my name, that ye may be sanctified by the reception of the Holy Ghost, that ye may stand spotless before me at the last day. 21 Verily, verily, I say unto you, this is my gospel (3 Nephi 27:13-21).
Joseph Smith said the following: The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it. (TPJS, Joseph Fielding Smith, Jr.).

I agree with you, the greatest issue we both face is whether the Book of Mormon is what it purports to be or if it is a fallacy. If it true then we are obligated to receive it. If it is false, it should be rejected and fought against. If it is true, Joseph Smith is what he claimed to be. If it is false, he is a false prophet. I am very aware of this. I stand with those who claim to have received a spiritual witness from the Holy Ghost that it is in very deed the word of God. Regardless, you have not and so you stand as a skeptic. That is reasonable.

The Prophet Joseph did say, I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book." [Emphasis added. Ed.] -- Joseph Smith, Documentary History of the Church, Vol. 4, p. 461 1. Again, the Book of Mormon was not designed to be a manual for starting any church. This is clear to anyone who has read it fully and completely. It is a compilation of the writings of various prophets who lived on this continent before and after the time of Christ. It relates basic gospel teachings and principles; specifically those related to the principles of faith, repentance, baptism and the gift of the Holy Ghost (what we consider to be the first principles and ordinances of the gospel and sufficient to get any man back into the presence of God.) Now let me address your points one by one.

YOU SAID: There is no Priesthood in the Book of Mormon.
CORRECTION: The Book of Mormon is replete with references to the Priesthood. It is also obvious from the text that it was completely taken for granted as a principle understood by the members of the church in their day.
  1. We find Nephi, one of the first Prophets mentioned in the Book, consecrating his brothers Jacob and Joseph, that they should be priests and teachers over the land of my people. (2 Nephi 5:26).
  2. In the days of King Benjamin, a Prophet/King in the Book of Mormon, there were many holy men in the land, and they did speak the word of God wih power and authority. (Words of Mormon 1:17). (We assume this obviously means the authority of the Priesthood.)
  3. It was from King Mosiah that the Prophet Alma the Elder received power to ordain priests and teachers over every church (Mosiah 25:19). Again, the authority spoken of here is the Priesthood.
  4. Alma the Younger testified that he was consecrated by his father, to be a high priest over the church of God, he having power and authority from God to do these things (Alma 5:3).
  5. Similarly, Aaron (another Priesthood holder of the Book of Mormon) and his brethren went forth from city to city, and from one house of worship to another, establishing churches, and consecrating priests and teachers throughout the land among the Lamanites, to preach and to teach the word of God among them. (Alma 23:4)
  6. As to becoming a member of Christ s church in those days, the record states that whosoever was baptized by the power and authority of God was added to his Church (Mosiah 18:17).
  7. The 13th chapter of Alma is dedicated to discussing the high priesthood of the holy order of God. It teaches that through the ordinances of this priesthood, the people of Melchizedek were cleansed from sin and entered into the rest of the Lord their God. (Alma 13:12).
There are many other references to the authority and those things accomplished by it. One important point. The people of the Book of Mormon were not Levites they did not carry with them the Aaronic Priesthood. However, their prophets did carry the Melchizedek Priesthood and it was the only authority they operated under. To them, it was simply the authority of God.

Again, the Book of Mormon was not an instruction book to Joseph Smith about how the church should be organized in our time. Rather a history with important teachings and testimony regarding Christ and his doctrine. A testimony to the world that the testimony of the Bible, that Jesus is the Christ, is true.

YOU SAID: There is no Eternal Progression in the Book of Mormon.
CORRECTION: I am assuming that you are referring to the doctrine of Deification or becoming like God. What I said before is valid, this is not the burden of the Book of Mormon to prove this doctrine. The Book of Mormon is fixed on the gospel of Christ not all details of the doctrines of the gospel. However, Bible writers, early Christian writers, and the Book of Mormon all directly or indirectly allude to this doctrine it is fundamentally a biblical doctrine! We truly do believe the Bible more literally than many of our fellow Christians. We believe that the Prophets, Christ and his Apostles really meant what they said in the following versus:
  • In the book of Genesis we find the command, Walk before me, and be thou perfect (Gen. 17:1) What type of perfection is being alluded to? In the Sermon on the Mount, the Savior gives the answer, Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in Heaven is perfect (Matt. 5:48). This was consistent with the Savior s high priestly prayer in John. Speaking of the believers, he petitioned the Father that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one (John 17:22-23). As stated above, Paul taught that a vital reason for the early church was for the perfecting of the Saints...till we all come...unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ (Ephesians 4:12-13). The measuring rod is not man, not some form of mini-Christ or quasi-God, bur rather the fulness of Christ . The standard of perfection was Christ.
  • Paul understood this doctrine, when speaking to the men of Athens, he said, Certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring (Acts 17:28). Paul new the consequences of being the offspring of God, for while speaking to the Romans, he declared, The spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: and if children, then heirs, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ (Romans 8:16-17) -- not subordinate heirs, not junior, not contingent, but joint, equal heirs with Christ, to share in all that he shall receive. John the Revelator saw in vision how all inclusive this inheritance would be: He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son. (Rev. 21:7) The Lord didn t promise some things, or even many things, but all things.
  • The Savior promises: To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with my in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne (Rev. 3:21). What throne was he referring to? Nothing less than the throne of God.
  • David, in the Old Testament, knowing that men might become partakes of the divine nature, spoke of a multiplicity of Gods: God standeth in the congregation of the mighty: he judgeth among the gods. (Psalm 82:1). Later he wrote, Before the gods will I sing praise unto thee (Jehovah, God) (Psalm 138:1). Some contend that other scriptures refer to only one God and, therefore, man cannot become a God otherwise he would be in violation of such scripture. For example, Paul taught, But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things. . .and onle Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him (1 Cor. 8:6). This scriptures does not say there is an absence of multiple gods, but rather suggests a hierarchy or order of Gods, and thus there exists only one God to whom we are accountable.
  • It is interesting that this teaching is found throughout the writings of non-biblical church fathers in the first and second century.
  • Justin Martyr wrote: We have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue. The Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:170.
  • Theophilus wrote that if a man would keep the commandments of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God. ( The Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:105).
  • Hippolytus, another ante-nicene father of the early church wrote, If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the lavar (baptism), he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead. The Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:237
  • Cyprian reaffirmed that men can become like Christ: What Christ is, we Christians shall be, if we imitate Christ. The Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:469
  • Iranaues noted: We have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods. The Ante-Nicene Fathers 1:522.
  • Clement of Alexandria said, It [referring to the instruction and preparation before mentioned] leads us to the endless and perfect end, teaching us beforehand the future life that we shall lead, according to God, and with gods; after we are freed from all punishment and penalty which we undergo...After which redemption the reward and the honours are assigned to those who have become perfect; when they have got done with purification..the Lord, there awaits them restoration to everlasting contemplation; and they are called by the appelation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with other gods that have been put in their places by the Savior. The Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:539 (emphasis added)
  • Arnobius, in the writing Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, said: The gods were originally human beings who were deified upon death Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 119.
  • Clement of Alexandria wrote: Knowing God, he will be made like God...and that man becomes God, since God so wills. The Ante-Nicene Fathers 2:271.
  • Hippolytus again said, And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou has become God, ...thou has been deified, and begotten into immortality. The Ante-Nicene Fathers 5:153
The current Prophet in the LDS Church, Gordon B. Hinckley has said, This lofty concept [deification] in no way diminishes God the Eternal Father He is the Almighty. He is the Creator and Governor of the Universe. He is the greatest of all and will ever be so. (Hinckley, Don t Drop the Ball; , Ensign, November 1994, 48.

We believe that we can be made perfect in Christ (Moroni 10:32). Not almost perfect, or lesser but perfect but truly perfect. Like Himself and God the Father. Joint heirs, full heirs, inheritors of the divine nature and the celestial gift. In multiple locations the Book of Mormon also refers to this lofty goal: (Moroni 10:32, 3 Nephi 9:17; 12:48; 27:27; 28:10)

The Book of Mormon does not go into detail on the topic. This revelation came through the Prophet Joseph Smith. His revelation helped us to better understand the full and perfect meaning of the scriptures and quotes cited above. This truth was lost to the world during dark ages. We do not fully understand all there is to know about this doctrine yet and expect many things to be revealed regarding it in the future.

YOU SAID: THERE IS NO POLYGAMY ALLOWED IN THE Book of Mormon, AND JOSEPH MADE HIS GOD A LIAR.
CORRECTION: It is true that polygamy was not allowed among the Book of Mormon people as per the scriptures you cited; however, in the book of Jacob in chapter 2 we find the following in context: Wherefore, my brethren, hear me, and hearken to the word of the Lord: For there shall not any man among you have save it be one wife; and concubines he shall have none; For I, the Lord God, delight in the chastity of women. And whoredoms are an abomination before me; thus saith the Lord of Hosts. Wherefore, this people shall keep my commandments, saith the Lord of Hosts, or cursed be the land for their sakes. For if I will, saith the Lord of Hosts, raise up seed unto me, I will command my people; otherwise they shall hearken unto these things. (Jacob 2:27-30). Here polygamy is condemend; however, the Lord leaves himself an out in saying that if it be wisdom in him to raise up seed, he can command it referring to polygamy; but unitl that time the people are forbidden.

Now, did Joseph make God a liar? NO, there is no contradiction in these scriptures. Apparently the people of Jacob were using the fact that David and Solomon took wives and concubines (without the approbation of the Lord) as an excuse to do it themselves.

Is it not peculiar that the Lord did not condemn Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, the parents of Samuel or other righteous patriarchs for taking wives that He had given them? Now turn to 2 Samuel, 12:7-8, and you will find that the Lord gave David wives. We also know that David took at least one wife that the Lord did not approve of. In your reading of the Old Testament you will also find that Solomon was blessed and the Lord appeared to him and gave him visions and great blessings when he had plural wives, but later in his life, he took wives that the Lord did not give him. For evidence of this, turn to 1 Kings 11 and read it. The people of Jacob were rationalizing their behavior because of what they read in the holy scriptures. Jacob condemns this action and makes it clear the what they did was wrong, inasmuch as it was not commanded by the Lord. Again, I refer back to Jacob 2:30 where the Lord says he MAY command the taking of more than one wife but hadn t among the Nephites.

The revelation in the Doctrine and Covenants is interesting because it comes as an inquiry by Joseph. He must have also wondered why God didn t condemn the patriarchs for the practice, why he even condoned it, yet Jacob did condemn such practices in the Book of Jacob. The clarification comes in Doctrine and Covenants 132:38 (which you didn t include in your quote). David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me. (D&C 132:38) What David and Solomon desired, when not in keeping with what the Lord desired, was a SIN.

God is not a Liar, rather he perfectly clarified what was said by two different prophets almost 2,000 years apart. Your supposition is that Joseph faked the Book of Mormon, that it is a fabrication. Now, even if you don t believe Joseph was a Prophet even historians note that he was one of the greatest minds of the 19th century. His accomplishments are monumental. Do you really think he would go directly against the founding book of his religion? Not likely; infact, it would be completely out of line with his character. It is funny to me that people want to paint Joseph with some kind of sick sexual idea yet there is not a single writing anywhere that fell from his pen, lips or friends that even hints at besmirching the chastity of women. He never wrote lewd letters, inappropriate poetry, lines or scriptures. We want to impress upon him our moral and civil boundaries all the while disregarding what God wanted. Would we be so harsh as to judge Jacob the Father of Israel as harshly as we have judged Joseph Smith. The entire house of Israel is built on a marriage of one man to four wives and their children!

YOU SAID: NO TEMPLES IN THE Book of Mormon
CORRECTION: Temples are regularly mentioned in the Book of Mormon. Nothing is said about what goes on within their walls. You will not find in any publication by the modern day church the details of what goes on in our temples either. We consider that sacred enough not to discuss as I am sure the saints of all ages have as well. Thus, there are no details. However, temple references are numerous: See 2 Ne. 5:6; Jacob 1:17; Jacob 2:2; Mosiah 1:18; Alma 10:2; Alma 16:13; Helaman 10:8; 3 Nephi 11 27 (takes place at temple in land Bountiful).

YOU SAID: NO BAPTISM FOR THE DEAD IN THE Book of Mormon
CORRECTION: This is correct. However, there is evidence of such an ordinance in the Bible (1 Cor. 15:29), information regarding this ordinance was restored to the Prophet Joseph in its completeness. This ordinance was introduced after the resurrection of Jesus Christ. As far as we know it had not been performed previously. Joseph also restored a host of knowledge regarding Christ preaching to the souls in prison during his three days away from his body, also mentioned in the Bible but no further details given.
  • 1 Cor. 15:29: Paul, in defending the resurrection of Christ and the future resurrection of all men used the ordinance of baptisms for the dead as justification. He pondered the question, Why do it if we aren t resurrected -- Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?
  • 1 Peter 3:19 What more do you know of this verse, By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; which sometimes were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. Joseph restored the principle that all men must be baptized to enter in the kingdom of God. This truth is plainly taught in the Bible. Yet what of those who died without hearing the message of salvation? Limbo? Eternal damnation? Watering down of the command that all be baptized? No! The Lord has provided a way. We may be baptized by the proper authority on behalf of those who have died. If they accept the message of salvation in the spirit world (or spirit prison) then they shall be set free by virtue of that vicarious ordinance. Paul didn t explain this, that wasn t the purpose of his letter. He only alludes and mentions to people who were already familiar with the doctrines.
  • 1 Peter 4:6 Again, relating to this doctrine, For this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit. We will all be judged by the laws given by Christ and his Prophets here in the flesh. Even those who live in the spirit must keep those commands. How can they be baptized? Only with our assistance.
  • The concept of vicarious ordinances should not be stranger to any Christian. The entire work of Christ is based on his vicarious suffering for our sins. He allows us to help our fellowmen by becoming Saviors on Mount Zion in performing baptisms and other ordinances for those that have died with authority given us by him directly.
  • You infer that Alma 34:32-34 contradicts this doctrine. It does not. Read that scripture again with this in mind. The missionary Amulek is testifying to a group of people that have dissented from the church of God. They have been taught the doctrine of Christ, received the ordinances and then rejected them. He is speaking to those who know the truth (again, just like the epistles of the Bible, context is important in the Book of Mormon). For those of us, I include myself in this group, who do not Improve (our) time while in this life, will not be given additional opportunity to repent in the next. That opportunity is reserved for those who have not received a witness of the truth while in this life (D&C 138). I can t hope to simply live a life of folly in the light of the gospel and then say, oops, hey I want to repent after I die. That is not how it works. My time for repentance is now, in this life! I love the Book of Mormon.
YOU SAID: THERE IS NO GENEALOGICAL WORK IN THE BOOK OF MORMON.
This is true to the extent that they really don t talk about it. But have you ever wondered why it was so important, not only in the Book of Mormon, but also in the Bible that the people are able to trace their lineage? It is a concept that floods the scriptures, infact, it is simply a given. Read the story of Lehi and his family and what they went through so that they could obtain the record that contained the genealogy of [their] forefathers (1 Nephi 3:3) The entire story is encompassed in 1 Nephi 3 5. It is quite an adventure with many beautiful gospel principles about faith, answer to prayer, obedience, angels, and more. The concept of geneaology is mentioned also in 1 Ne. 5:14, 16; Alma 37:3; Jarom 1:1; Omni 1:1, 18. For members of the church today, geneaology is important because we want to be sure our families are given the opportunity of accepting ordinances performed for them here on earth in order that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.

YOU SAID: THERE IS NO ESCAPE FROM HELL IN THE Book of Mormon; ALMA 42:16
CORRECTION: Alma 42:16 does not address this topic. However, it is important for you to realize that as far as I know, we are the only Christian church to recognize that the mercy of Christ is great enough to extend to all of God s children, the wicked and the righteous. The Book of Mormon teaches us that because of the resurrection and atonement of Christ all men will eventually be released from that awful monster hell. (the only exception being the sons of Perdition). See 2 Nephi 9 (specifically vss 5 16.) Joseph further elaborated and revealed that all men (excepting the sons of Perdition), will receive a degree of glory. The Book of Mormon does not reveal anything regarding the Celestial, Terrestrial or Telestial kingdom.

I challenge your position that Mormon doctrine and Orthodox biblical doctrine are mutually exclusive. This simply is not the case. I am convinced that if you took an individual -- completely ignorant of any Christian beliefs -- and gave him a copy of the Bible to read with the assumption that he would accept it as truth -- he would have a few questions when he finished. Among those questions would be the following:
  1. Where are God s prophets and apostles today? (There is no reason for their absence given in the Bible, an ignorant reader would simply infer that God continues to communicate with his children the way he always has from Adam to John the Revelator.) He would be disappointed to find that in the modern-day Christian community that there are no Prophets and Apostles.
  2. Do we enjoy the visitation of angels and gifts of the spirit as believers always have from the days of Adam to John the Revelator? Again, he would be disappointed to find out that the modern Christian world rejects such revelations and attributes them to works of darkness.
  3. He would certainly inquire about baptism by immersion for the remission of sins and the laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost by legal administrators of Christ as illustrated multiple times in the Bible. This is repeatedly commanded as a prerequisite for salvation. He would be saddened to find such ordinances completely lacking in modern Christianity, replaced by a multitude of other rites. We would be even more shocked to find no consensus among Modern Christian about was was painstakingly obvious to the leaders of the Church in Christ s day.
  4. He would want to see the latest scriptures received by God s appointed servants. He would be surprised and disappointed to find out that no new revelation has been received in almost 2000 years!
I believe that these are fairly significant points. All of which are completely Biblical but not found in modern day Christianity. Yet celebrated and practiced in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
I would love to converse back and forth with you over specific doctrines and hear your insight and thoughts. This email was by no means meant to be exhaustive on any point. I am always interested in how others perceive the Bible, its teachings and principles. Don t feel compelled to respond to this entire email. Just pick a point of most interest and lets converse.



On Doctrine Reply

I understand the reality that we both have different allegiances that are unlikely to change. I have a belief based on the authority of the revelation of Scripture contained in the Bible, while you have a belief based on the continuing revelation and authority vested in the Living Prophet which transcends previous prophets and supersedes the Book of Mormon as the restoration of the gospel message, which you believe is confirmed by the subjective feelings of your testimony.

Minimizing the reality of how Joseph Smith viewed the Bible and the serious nature of the statements that he made regarding its veracity in the attempt to establish the authority of the Mormon church, by essentially claiming that there are errors as a result of translation from language to language, but "it is not particularly erroneous," mirrors the approach that the church is now taking in order to make itself appear to be more mainstream. That is simply not a viable position to take in relation to the issue. The historic position of the Mormon church, beginning with Joseph Smith, is that there have been many additions to the Bible that do not belong because they are not Scripture, and major portions have been removed that are Scripture, as the quote you included states. If major portions of the Bible have been removed and other portions added, "by corrupt Catholic priests," then by any reasonable definition, the Mormon church has adopted a position that the Bible is not just in error, but in major error.

Joseph Smith was quite specific regarding the character of the Bible:

"Upon my return from Amhurst Conference, I resumed the translation of the Scriptures. From sundry revelations which had been received, it was apparent that many important points touching the salvation of men, had been taken from the Bible or lost before it was compiled."
Joseph Smith, Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. 9-11.

His statement is similar to that which he wrote in the Book of Mormon, 1 Nephi 13:26-29, and also follows the statements that he made about the claims in his first vision:
"My mind at times was greatly excited, the cry and tumult were so great and incessant. The Presbyterians were most decided against the Baptists and Methodists, and used all the powers of both reason and sophistry to prove their errors, or, at least, to make the people think they were in error. On the other hand, the Baptists and Methodists in their turn were equally zealous in endeavoring to establish their own tenets and disprove all others.
In the midst of this war of words and tumult of opinions, I often said to myself: What is to be done? Who of all these parties are right; or, are they all wrong together? If any one of them be right, which is it, and how shall I know it? . . .
I was answered that I must join none of them, for they were all wrong; and the Personage who addressed me said that all their creeds were an abomination in his sight; that those professors were all corrupt; that: 'they draw near to me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me, they teach for doctrines the commandments of men, having a form of godliness, but they deny the power thereof.' He again forbade me to join with any of them; and many other things did he say unto me, which I cannot write at this time. When I came to myself again, I found myself lying on my back, looking up into heaven. When the light had departed, I had no strength; but soon recovering in some degree, I went home. And as I leaned up to the fireplace, mother inquired what the matter was. I replied, Never mind, all is well I am well enough off. I then said to my mother, I have learned for myself that Presbyterianism is not true. It seems as though the adversary was aware, at a very early period of my life, that I was destined to prove a disturber and an annoyer of his kingdom; else why should the powers of darkness combine against me? Why the opposition and persecution that arose against me, almost in my infancy?
---Joseph Smith, "First Vision," Pearl of Great Price, ch. 1.
If, as Joseph Smith claimed, "many important points touching the salvation of men" were removed from the Bible, then salvation by the Mormon definition as he understood it cannot be found within its pages, which would be the ultimate and most pervasive error possible. If all religious groups were wrong and an abomination to God, then only the Mormon church is true and acceptable to God. That is a massive condemnation. That is a condemnation based on the claim that the Bible is inadequate, because it is a crippled document, not representing the original writings due to those additions and subtractions that render it to be an untrustworthy rendering, and that is the same position that you have taken by stating that the Bible is inadequate as the foundational guide for the church, "However, using the Bible as the foundation of any church has proven inadequate."

The historical position of the church has been stated many times by various individuals including general authorities and historians who have expressed thoughts similar to the following:

"The original manuscripts of the books of the Old and New Testaments are no where to be found; all we have left are mutilated copies containing an incredible number of contradictory readings. From these, uninspired men have translated by their own human wisdom our present version of the Bible, which is so indefinite that it leaves room for different opinions, clashing one against the other ..." --Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 213.

Apostle Orson Pratt went so far as to question the inspired nature of the New Testament in its original form, even if the original manuscripts were available and were confirmed as written by the original authors:

"If it be admitted that the apostles and evangelists did write the books of the New Testament, that does not prove of itself that they were divinely inspired at the time they wrote.... Add all this imperfection to the uncertainty of the translation, and who, in his right mind could for one moment suppose the Bible in its present form to be a perfect guide? Who knows that even one verse of the Bible has escaped pollution, so as to convey the same sense now that it did in the original?"
---Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authority of the Book of Mormon, pp. 45, 47.

Additionally, Apostle Orson Pratt stated the following:
"The gathering together of the few scattered manuscripts which compose what is now termed the Bible was the work of uninspired man which took place centuries after John finished his manuscript. Among the vast number of professedly inspired manuscripts, scattered through the world, man, poor, weak, ignorant man assumed the authority to select a few, which according to his frail judgment, he believed or conjectured were of God, but the balance not agreeing, perhaps, with his peculiar notions of divine inspiration, were rejected as spurious. The few, selected from the abundance, were finally arranged into one volume, divided into chapter and verse, and named the Bible."
---Apostle Orson Pratt, Divine Authenticity of the Book of Mormon, p. 3.

"The Bible has been robbed of its plainness; many sacred books having been lost, others rejected by the Romish Church, and what few we have left, were copied and re-copied so many times, that it is admitted that almost every verse has been corrupted and mutilated to that degree that scarcely any two of them read alike."
---Apostle Orson Pratt, The Seer, p. 213.

"Those books that are now compiled in the Bible - and a great many more that are not there - were scattered abroad, and hundreds of years after that, they were hunted up and examined; those that we now have were selected from a great mass of manuscripts and compiled; others were thrown away as non-canonical."
--Elder Charles W. Penrose, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 24, p. 209, 1883

"The early 'Apostate Fathers' did not think it was wrong to tamper with inspired scripture. If any scripture seemed to endanger their viewpoint, it was altered, transplanted or completely removed from the Biblical text."
---President Joseph Fielding Smith, Religious Truths Defined, p.175.

"Many insertions were made, some of them 'slanted' for selfish purposes, while at times deliberate falsifications and fabrications were perpetrated."
"It is evident then that many of the 'plain and precious' things were omitted from the Bible by failure to choose all of the authentic books for inclusion, and by deliberate changes, deletions and forgeries ..."
---Apostle Mark E. Peterson, As Translated Correctly, pp. 4, 14.

"There is not one principle pertaining to the salvation of men that is so clearly stated in the Bible, as it has come down to us, that men do not stumble over - not one thing. There is not one principle they can be united on that has been so clearly stated that they do not find their interpretations of it conflicting"
---President Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p. 278.

The gospel message that is currently taught in the Mormon church is not found in the Bible, so as a means of conveying an understanding of that gospel message, the Bible is considered by the Mormon church to be erroneous through omission and it is forced into a position whereby the Bible is not only considered to be erroneous, it is also false because it presents a different gospel. That was the point of Joseph Smith's claim that every biblically based minister and group were apostate, and why he included the statements in 1 Nephi 13:26-29 and 2 Nephi 29:3-10. It was not that just some people like Catholics were apostate, but every single person who did not adopt the doctrines that he presented within the parameters of the Mormon church. Joseph Smith claimed that the gospel had been restored through the Book of Mormon because it had been lost as the message which was claimed to be originally part of the Bible but was removed or distorted to the point that it was unrecognizable or could not be found.

The charges by the Mormon church against the foundational veracity of the Bible have always been on three fronts:
1. It has been mistranslated by uninspired translators, meaning translators who were not Mormon prophets.
2. It has major portions consisting of additions, such as by "corrupt Catholic priests," that are not inspired and are in error.
3. It is incomplete because major portions have been removed, specifically those portions that it is claimed would validate current Mormon doctrine.

If the Bible is not particularly erroneous, then the Mormon gospel should be found there and a new and major volume of revelation should not have been necessary to restore what was only marginally missing from the Bible. Only a new translation of the Bible by the inspired prophet would have been necessary to make everything clear. The claim of a corrupt and unreliable Bible was the very foundational reason that the Book of Mormon was presented as the restoration of the gospel, which is exactly stated:

"Nothing less than a complete apostasy from the Christian religion would warrant the establishment of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."
---Pearl of Great Price, introduction

I understand the subtlety of the argument by which it is claimed that the Bible is not particularly erroneous in relation to translations from what the manuscripts actually say, a position that the church has been forced to adopt when faced with the reality that those translations are not in error to any significant degree in relation to the documents from which the translations were made.

"It is true that the latter-day Saints have taken the position that the present Bible is much changed from its original form. However, greatest changes would logically have occurred in writings more remote than the New Testament. The textural history of the New Testament gives every reason to assume a fairly stable transmission of the documents we possess."
---Dr. Richard L. Anderson, Brigham Young University, Fourteenth Annual Symposium of the Archaeology of the Scriptures, Brigham Young University, 1963.

What is being attempted is to move the error back farther into history, by claiming that the manuscripts themselves are in error (although erroneous, they have been translated correctly such as in the KJV), and to the extent that they represent the claims by Joseph Smith of additions or mistranslation, the Bible then can and is considered to be in significant error by the church because those manuscripts are considered to be untrustworthy as a result of the additions, omissions and translation that they represent. However, since the church could not sustain a case against the translation of the Bible as it stood in Joseph Smith's time (specifically the KJV) or today, simply moving the claims back another generation of manuscripts does not relieve the church of the responsibility to defend and prove that case as well, which it has been unable to do.

However, the problem is compounded for the church if the error is pushed back farther into history, because Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon claim that it was not until after the establishment of the Catholic church that all of the changes occurred:

"And after they go forth by the hand of the twelve apostles of the lamb, from the Jews unto the Gentiles, thou seest the foundation of a great and abominable church, which is most abominable above all other churches; for behold, they have taken away from the gospel of the Lamb many parts which are plain and most precious; and also many covenants of the Lord have they taken away. An all this have they done that they might pervert the right ways of the Lord, that they might blind the eyes and harden the hearts of the children of men."
---1 Nephi 13:26-27

The Catholic church was not established until 400 A.D., and there are in existence manuscripts earlier than that date which do not show any sign of being altered. This includes the Qumran Isaiah scroll from circa. 100 B.C., which must be considered by the church to be correct because it was in the possession of the Jews, 1 Nephi 13:25. However, the quotations from Isaiah in the Book of Mormon and those in Joseph Smith's Inspired Version of the Bible do not agree with each other, but it is virtually identical to that found in the KJV. So that difficulty lies with the translation ability and claims of Joseph Smith and not with any alteration by the Catholic church. In addition, if the manuscripts which are considered to contain the errors are pushed back prior to the 4th century A.D., then it was not the Catholic church that initiated the claimed errors, which means that the Book of Mormon, the statements of Joseph Smith and the later Living Prophets and General Authorities are in error regarding the source of those errors.

Since Joseph Smith provided an inspired translation of the Bible, one would think that all of those missing parts would have been restored, including those books mentioned in the Bible that are claimed to have been a part of the original revelation, and then the added sections would have been removed, restoring the full revelation of the Mormon gospel, but that was not the case, and represents the major reason why the majority of the JST has not been canonized by the church. It is easy for the Mormon church to claim error in the Bible and then provide a revised translation or another interpretation, but if the JST were canonized, it would be impossible to claim error on the part of that version, but the Mormon gospel as taught today is missing its major parts in the JST just as it is in the KJV from which it was claimed to be translated.

I don't find the appeal to a historical record "gap" regarding the 40 days after the resurrection, to be of any significance at all. The life of Jesus Christ was 33 years and His ministry was three and one-half years, so the record is infinitesimal in relation to all that happened during his life, John 21:25. If you are attempting to build a case based on a claim that there should be a comprehensive record of every event that you could wish, then you can apply the same reasoning to the Book of Mormon, specifically the first 112 pages that are missing and were lost because Joseph Smith ignored the direct command of God, and the fact that the Book of Mormon represents over 1,000 years of history condensed into 522 pages. How much is missing from that period of time? What you are attempting to do is claim that the Mormon gospel would be found in the historical records of those 40 days or records of other historical events if they existed, but a theology based on a supposition is a foundation of sand. Nothing in the history of the Christian church indicates that those historical records were lost or ever existed, and the reality is that as the church of the Restoration, the Mormon church, does not have those records either and they were not restored by Joseph Smith in the JST version of the Bible and have not been restored by any other Mormon prophet. Based on the ability of the prophets of the Mormon church after Joseph Smith to claim new historical revelation regarding the events in the life of Jesus Christ up to the ascension, those events in His life will remain unknown. Based on the reality that there isn't one historical or archaeological fact confirming the history said to be found in the Book of Mormon, the validity of the history that is claimed to be represented within its pages is seriously suspect.

Your reference to the nature of the biblical writings and the claim that many things were left out of the epistles is an argument that applies to the Book of Mormon as well, since there are quite a number of doctrines now taught in the Mormon church, the specifics of which are unknown in that book. The current version of the Mormon gospel being taught is not found in the Book of Mormon. That is the same issue in relation to the JST version, in which virtually none of the current elements of the Mormon gospel were restored to that version of the Bible.

You note that there are references in the Bible to other writings that no longer exist, but that criticism also applies to the Book of Mormon as well because there are writings mentioned within its pages that no longer exist:

1. Book of Remembrance - 3 Nephi 24:16
2. Prophecies of Zenos - 1 Nephi 19:10, Jacob 5:1
3. Prophecies of Zenock - 1 Nephi 19:10
4. Prophecies of Neum - 1 Nephi 19:10
5. Missing Plates from Laban - 1 Nephi 3:3-4
6. Lost Teaching of Benjamin - Mosiah 1:8
7. Lost Word of Amulek - Alma 9:34
8. Lost Words of Alma - Alma 13:31
9. Lost Teachings of Alma - Alma 8:1
10. Lost Teachings of Helaman - Helaman 5:13

Are you willing to apply the same standard to the Book of Mormon as you do to the Bible and claim that it is also deficient because it does not have books included that are mentioned within its pages?

You stated, in relation to the Bible, "Thus, many things were only alluded to, such as baptism for the dead and the roles of the various priesthood leaders. It is this partial explanation that has caused confusion for later readers." But that is the same argument that you use to defend the Book of Mormon as not being a manual of doctrine. Why is it a defense of the Book of Mormon and a criticism of the Bible? I mentioned in my previous communication the many current Mormon doctrines that are not found in the Book of Mormon, including the priesthood, specifically as it is found in the Mormon church today. You claim that the mention of priests confirms the existence in the Book of Mormon of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods as they are found in the Mormon church today, yet, just as you claim that the Bible does not provide the specifics of certain doctrines, the Book of Mormon does not provide the details about those priesthood offices as they are practiced in the church today. That was my specific reference in relation to what I stated about there being no priesthood in the Book of Mormon. If you wish to claim missing specifics in the Bible, then you must also admit to the same difficulties in the Book of Mormon and be up front with the reality that the difficulty is claimed to be resolved through the revelations of the Living Prophets and not through any specifics in the Book of Mormon. A person reading the Book of Mormon would not conceive of the priesthood as it is practiced in the Mormon church today. The structure of the main component of the current Mormon gospel, the holding of the priesthood by every worthy male Mormon, is not taught in the Book of Mormon.

You stated, "However, using the Bible as the foundation of any church has proven inadequate. The multitude of Christian denominations proves this point." I am sorry, but the adequacy of the Bible as the foundational guide for the church is not the issue at all. The issue is the people who claim that the Bible supports their belief. People are inadequate, not the Bible. The Mormon church is not exempt from this very issue, because on the death of Joseph Smith the church was faced with a major split, resulting in the LDS and RLDS churches, both claiming that they were the true church and both claiming as their foundation the Book of Mormon, but each having different versions of their gospel principles and each using a different Bible, the LDS using the corrupted KJV and the RLDS using the JST translated by Joseph Smith. So was the book of the restoration of the gospel at fault? You certainly would not agree to that point of view. But that is the same issue that you raise in relation to the Bible by which you claim it is inadequate, but again, you apply a double standard and do not claim the same for the Book of Mormon. The Mormon church would claim that part of the problem is that the LDS is the true church because it is led by Living Prophets who speak the mind of God, while the RLDS church is not led by those same inspired men, but that is the very heart of the issue, a claim to further revelation and authority that supersedes the Book of Mormon which also supersedes the Bible. The Mormon church has created the same difficulty in relation to the Book of Mormon and the Bible that it claims other Christian denominations are guilty of perpetrating in relation to the Bible. The Mormon church denies the authority of the Bible by subjecting it to the Book of Mormon, then subjects the Book of Mormon to the pronouncements and doctrines of the Living Prophets and then bases its theology on their pronouncements, just as do the majority of the leaders of those Christian denominations who create their own doctrines and then subject the Bible to them, and the Mormon church condemns them for doing exactly the same thing as the Living Prophets. There are numerous Mormon sects, I have heard somewhere between 100 and 200, so it is an issue that you must deal with before you try to claim that the Bible is inadequate when you are faced with the same situation in relation to the Book of Mormon. There are many Christian denominations and sects, because many, if not most, are in error or they choose to major on a point of doctrinal insignificance. The issue is not the authority or adequacy of the Bible, other than many leaders presume their own authority is greater than the Bible they claim to believe.

The situation is exactly the same in relation to the Book of Mormon and the LDS church. The varying sects exist because they are in error in relation to LDS theology or authority, and the leaders propose and teach doctrines that are different than those found in the LDS church, and in many cases, different from those found in the Book of Mormon. That is a real issue within the Mormon church itself, and is quite apparent regarding the Adam-God doctrine created and taught by Prophet Brigham Young beginning in 1852, and was not declared false teaching until 1976. At the highest level of authority, the Mormon church entertained false doctrine for over 126 years, spanning the offices of 10 presidents of the church who did not recognize or take action against the error. As a result, numerous generations of faithful believers were taught to worship the wrong god.

The proliferation of Mormon sects has nothing to do with the presumed authority and validity of the Book of Mormon as believed by LDS followers, just as the numerous Christian denominations and sects has nothing to do with the veracity and adequacy of the Bible. Orson Pratt popularized the idea that the numerous Christian denominations and sects were the result of a corrupted Bible, but the conclusion is faulty. I would not use the substance of your argument to deny the validity of the Book of Mormon, because it is based on a predetermined conclusion which uses a defective logical association, resulting in circular reasoning, i.e., (1) The Bible is inadequate, therefore (2) There are many Christian sects, because (1) The Bible is inadequate; (1): The Book of Mormon is inadequate, therefore (2) There are many Mormon sects, because (1) The Book of Mormon is inadequate.

I realize that you believe that much has been lost from the Bible, because you have adopted the teachings of your leaders, you have applied your personal opinion to the issue and then you use your testimony as the confirmation of the truth of what has been stated by the LDS prophets and general authorities. But what you believe and feel is the case does not create reality and it also does not confirm reality, and in the case of the Bible, again it is the duty of the Mormon church to prove the allegations that it has made since its inception, but has not been able to do.

I would agree with your statement that we agree that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind, except that there is a difference regarding to which Jesus Christ you are referring. The Jesus Christ, as defined in Mormon doctrine, is not the same as the person defined in Orthodox belief just as President Gordon Hinckley has said. The origin of Jesus Christ, His nature and the means by which He accomplished the method of salvation through the atonement are all different in the two systems of belief as are the definitions of the terms salvation and atonement.

As with most elements of Mormon and Orthodox doctrine, the names and terms are the same, but the definitions are radically different. Yes, Jesus Christ is the Savior, but which one? You have made your decision and I have made mine: you have made your decision based on the pronouncements of the Living Prophets in opposition to the Book of Mormon, and I have made mine based on the Bible.

I would agree that the Book of Mormon contains what is said to be the fullness of the Mormon gospel message as claimed by Joseph Smith, and if 3 Nephi 27:13-21 were the only elements of that gospel taught by the Mormon church today, then there would be no discussion as to whether the Book of Mormon represents the Mormon gospel. But, as you know, that passage does not represent the fullness of the Mormon gospel message as taught in the church since its inception and as taught today.

For example:
1. Temple Marriage is required in order for a person to obtain the ultimate exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom, or the attainment of godhood. However, that teaching is not found in the Book of Mormon, so as a fundamental doctrine of the fullness of salvation, it was unknown to to the original writers of the Book of Mormon and to early Mormons, and a person dying before its revelation will have no chance to obtain the highest exaltation. So, the Book of Mormon does not contain the fullness of the Mormon gospel, since a very necessary portion required for the highest exaltation is not found there. There were no temple marriages performed in the Jewish temple in either the Old or New Testaments, and there were no Christian temples after the time of Jesus Christ, so, according to Mormon doctrine, none of those people can be exalted to any of the three level of the Celestial Kingdom, and in fact, no one until the building of the Nauvoo Mormon Temple can ever be exalted to the Celestial Kingdom.

2. Polygamy is required in order to obtain the highest exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom and failure to participate is cause to place a person in the Terrestrial or Telestial kingdoms, according to words of God stated by Joseph Smith in his revelation:
"Therefore, prepare thy heart to receive and obey the instructions which I am about to give unto you; for all those, who have this law revealed unto them, must obey the same. For behold! I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory..."
---Doctrine and Covenants, section, 132.

Polygamy as a means to attain any type of exaltation is not found in the Book of Mormon, but the practice is condemned. If God justified Abraham, David and Solomon because they practiced polygamy by His command, when was that command rescinded and why? Why did the people in the Book of Mormon not know about the requirement in order to obtain their exaltation? Either the Book of Mormon left out a particularly important teaching in relation to attaining the highest exaltation, or God changed the principles of salvation and added a new requirement. Either way, the Book of Mormon does not contain the teaching, so it does not actually represent the fullness of the Mormon gospel message. Joseph Smith claimed that God said that He justified Abraham, David and Solomon for their polygamy, so the teaching should have appeared in the Book of Mormon, however it states that God condemned them for the same acts.

I am aware that the Book of Mormon mentions various priesthood activities which the church defines as the priesthood as found in the Mormon church today, and I also understand that the church considers those priesthood activities to be actions within the parameters of the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods. But the point of my comment was that the Book of Mormon makes no such statement to that effect. It is simply assumed that was the case and then Joseph Smith's teachings regarding the priesthood are read into those verses. The verses are redacted to say and mean what is wished to be found there, but is not. The Book of Mormon speaks about individual men with priesthood duties, which is much different than the priesthood found in the Mormon church today, in which virtually every qualified male member holds an office in either the Aaronic and/or Melchizedek priesthood.

Alma 13 is an interesting chapter because of the backward twist that it places on the Melchizedek priesthood, claiming that Melchizedek "was a high priest after this same order which I have spoken, who also took upon him the high priesthood forever," vs. 14. The "order" of which was spoken is defined, being "This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world . . ," vs. 7. This is quite different from the Bible, in which Melchizedek "was a priest of God Most High," Genesis 14:18, and not a priest of the order of the Son of God. Melchizedek was appointed to his priesthood by God Most High, just as was Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ was appointed a priest after the order of Melchizedek and not after the order of Himself as the Son of God, "You are a priest forever according to the order of Melchizedek," Hebrews 5:6, but He also has a unique qualification that allows Him to receive the priesthood from God, "And having been made perfect, He became to all those who obey Him the source of eternal salvation, being designated by God as a high priest according to the order of Melchizedek," Hebrews 5:9-10.

Additionally, Melchizedek did not hold his high priest office forever as claimed in Alma 13:7-9, since he held his office by appointment only until his death, but the office of High Priest was conferred on Jesus Christ who holds it forever because He lives forever, "The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because He continues forever, holds His priesthood permanently. Therefore He is able also to save forever those who draw near to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them. For it was fitting for us to have such a high priest, holy, innocent, undefiled, separated from sinners and exalted above the heavens; who does not need daily, like those high priests, to offer up sacrifices, first for His own sins and then for the sins of the people, but because this He did once for all when he offered up Himself. For the Law appoints men as high priests who are weak, but the word of the oath, which came after the Law, appoints a Son, made perfect forever," Hebrews 7:23-28.

One of the difficulties with the Mormon priesthood, is that it is based on lineal descent, in which it is conferred from one person to another. This definition of lineal descent allows the Mormon church to claim that the Aaronic priesthood can be conferred outside the biblical boundaries of the tribe of Levi to which it was specifically confined. This is an especially troublesome issue in relation to the Melchizedek priesthood which was not based on lineal descent through birth, but was an appointed position granted specifically by God. There is no record, either in the Bible or Jewish history that there was a priesthood of Melchizedek defined within their religious system. The priesthood of Melchizedek was never identified with Israel, Melchizedeks's appearance to Abraham being prior to the establishment of Israel and the Old Covenant, and the granting of it to Jesus Christ was after His ascension and after the New Covenant and was applied to the entire human race. The other difficulty is the connection that the Mormon church makes between the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedek priesthood, in which an individual simply transitions from one to the other, also by lineal descent based on conferring the office through the laying on of hands. In the Bible, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthoods are separate, having no connection to each other. There is no teaching in the Bible that Melchizedek or Jesus Christ received the Melchizedek priesthood by the laying on of hands, because it was an appointed position by God and not a priesthood of lineal descent conferred through a human instrument. In both cases, the Aaronic and Melchizedek priesthood, the offices are held only as the officiant lives and they are dispossessed at death, Hebrews 7:23, in contrast to Jesus Christ who holds His priesthood permanently because He lives forever, Hebrews 7:24.

The description of the Melchizedek priesthood in Alma 13 is as close as you can get to the priesthood found in the Mormon church today, but there are some very problematic elements that make the current version practiced today to be something quite different.

1. The Melchizedek priesthood in the Book of Mormon was appointed by God, while that in current Mormon theology is conferred from one person to another.

2. In the Book of Mormon, all the Melchizedek priests were high priests, "Now, as I said concerning the holy order of this high priesthood, there were many who were ordained and became high priests of God . . ," Alma 13:10, but in the Mormon Melchizedek priesthood today, there are only 3 high priests at any one time, the President and the 1st and 2nd Counselors of the presidency.

3. In the Book of Mormon, the Melchizedek priesthood was not open to every male, but only to those who were, ". . . called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to their foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceeding great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such," Alma 13:3.

The Melchizedek priesthood in the Book of Mormon was confined to a specific group of men, "Or in fine, in the first place they were on the same standing with their brethren; thus this holy calling being prepared from the foundation of the world for such as would not harden their hearts, being in and through the atonement of the Only Begotten Son, who was prepared--," Alma 13:5, but in current practice, the Melchizedek priesthood is open to all qualified males and is conferred when they first become an elder.

4. In the Book of Mormon, the Melchizedek priesthood has eternally existed, established by God, "This high priesthood being after the order of his Son, which order was from the foundation of the world; or in other words, being without beginning of days or end of years, being prepared from eternity to all eternity, according to his foreknowledge of all things," Alma 13:7, but in current Mormon doctrine neither God or Jesus Christ have existed from eternity, therefore God could not have established the priesthood from eternity or assigned it to his Son from eternity. God, in Mormon theology, has not existed from eternity, because at one point he was just a man on another planet, either in this universe or another, moving through the elements of the eternal progression until at a specific point in history he was exalted to Godhood. It was only at his exaltation that he could have established the Melchizedek priesthood and assigned it to his son, whose spirit may or may not have been procreated by him at that point. The problem cannot be resolved by asserting that the context of eternity is simply a very long span of time, because the comparison is between eternity past and eternity future. If it is assumed that the definition of eternity is simply a very long period of time, then it must also be assumed that the priesthood will one day end and also God will cease to exist after a long period of time.

Alma 13:3 presents the reality that the Book of Mormon teaches the existence of a monotheistic God who has existed from eternity past and is without beginning. The Book of Mormon also originally taught a modalistic view of the godhead, in which God the Father and Jesus Christ were the same individual. However, that teaching was removed from the scripture and changed to reflect Joseph Smith's new teaching about the Eternal Progression, his idea that God was once just a man and his adoption of polytheism, which he presented in the "King Follett Discourse" in 1844, concepts that are foreign to the Book of Mormon:

"First, God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heavens, is a man like unto one of yourselves, that is the great secret. . . . He is our Father - the Father of our spirits, and was once a man in mortal flesh as we are, and is now an exalted Being. How many Gods there are, I do not know. But there never was a time when there were not Gods and worlds, and when men were not passing through the same ordeals that we are now passing through,"
---Joseph Smith, "King Follett Discourse," April 6, 1844

The Book of Mormon originally stated the following:
1 Nephi 13:40
"And the angel spake unto me, saying, 'These last records, which thou hast seen among the Gentiles, shall establish the truth of the first, which are of the twelve apostles of the Lamb, and shall make known the plain and precious things which have been taken away from them; and shall make known to all kindreds, tongues, and people, that the Lamb of God is the Eternal Father and the Saviour of the world; and that all men must come unto him, or they cannot be saved,"
---Book of Mormon, 1830 edition.

The verse now reads:
". . . that the Lamb of God is the Son of the Eternal Father, and the Savior of the World . . ,"
---Book of Mormon, 1924 edition.

1 Nephi 11:18
"And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother God, after the manner of the flesh."
---Book of Mormon, 1830 edition.

The verse now reads:
"And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh."
---Book of Mormon, 1924 edition.

1 Nephi 11:21
"And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?"
Book of Mormon, 1830 edition

The verse now reads:
"And the angel said unto me: Behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Son of the Eternal Father! Knowest thou the meaning of the tree which thy father saw?"
---Book of Mormon, 1924 edition.

1 Nephi 11:32
"And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record."
Book of Mormon, 1924 edition.

The verse now reads:
"And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again, saying: Look! And I beheld the Lamb of God, that he was taken by the people; yea, the Son of the Everlasting God was judged of the world; and I saw and bear record."
Book of Mormon, 1924 edition.

One of those "plain and precious things" taken away from Mormon scripture was the knowledge that the "Lamb of God is the Eternal Father . . ," and the teaching was taken away from the Book of Mormon by Mormon leadership, not from the Bible. It cannot be stated that the changes simply clarified what was being stated in the original verses, because they change completely the meaning of the original verses which taught a modalistic view of the godhead, and could not be allowed to exist in their original form as perfectly translated, because of Joseph Smith's new teaching.

The Aaronic priesthood as practiced in the Mormon church today, bears no relation to that found in the Old Testament and specifically in relation to the duties that were to be performed by the priests regarding the Temple and the sacrifices that were to be given. The Aaronic priesthood was the proprietary possession of the tribe of Levi and specifically the sons of Aaron and their descendants, Numbers 3:3-10. Even during the lifetime of Aaron, there were only two priests who served, in addition to their father Aaron the High Priest, "But Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord when they offered strange fire before the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai; and they had no children. So Eleazar and Ithamar served as priests in the lifetime of their father Aaron," Numbers 3:4. The Aaronic priesthood office was hereditary, a person being a priest from their birth and requiring no conferring of that office through the laying on of hands, so, unlike the office in the Mormon church where an individual does not have the priesthood until it is conferred on them when they are twelve years old (except for converts who may be older), legitimate Aaronic priests always possessed the office from their birth. The Aaronic priesthood was the possession of only a few, not the entire male population of Israel as they reached a certain age.

Most Mormons are said to be identified with the tribes of Ephraim or Manasseh, which disqualifies virtually every Mormon from being an Aaronic priest. Even Jesus Christ did not hold the Aaronic priesthood, "Now if perfection was though the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the people received the law), what further need was there for another priest to arise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be designated according to the order of Aaron? For when the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also. For the one concerning whom these things are spoken belongs to another tribe, from which no one has officiated at the altar. For it is evident that our Lord was descended from Judah, a tribe with reference to which Moses spoke nothing concerning priests," Hebrews 7:11-14. The reality is, that when Jesus Christ was given the Melchizedek priesthood by God, the Aaronic priesthood was abolished, since Jesus Christ is the only High Priest and supersedes any earthly priesthood which is of no effect.

Not only were Levites who were not descended from Aaron prevented from holding the priesthood, no one from the tribe of Judah was ever a priest and there is no record that there were priests from other tribes. The Mormon church says that it is in possession of the Aaronic priesthood, but it is a claim made without a foundation, because it cannot claim an Aaronic inheritance which is not connected to Aaron. At the point the priesthood is given to someone other than a descendant of Aaron, it is no longer Aaronic. I know that Joseph Smith claimed to have received the Aaronic priesthood from John the Baptist, however, after his death John the Baptist was no longer in possession of the Aaronic priesthood, "The former priests, on the one hand, existed in greater numbers because they were prevented by death from continuing, but Jesus, on the other hand, because he continues forever, holds His priethood permanently," Hebrews 7:23-24 (NAS). Joseph Smith's claim to have receive the Aaron Prieshood from John the Baptist carries with it a very troubling issue of validity and not only because John the Baptist was dispossessed of his priestly office when he died. Neither Joseph Smith or Oliver Cowdery claimed to be of the tribe of Levi or descendants of Aaron, so they were not qualified to receive the priesthood by hereditary descent and they were prevented from receiving it by any other means since they were neither Levites or Jews. If John the Baptist conferred the Aaronic priesthood on Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery as claimed, then he did it without any authority to do so, since the priesthood is hereditary and at his death he was dispossessed of its authority (Hebrews 7:23-28), so the priesthood claim of Joseph Smith is invalid, and also, the priesthood was conferred to Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery outside the parameters established in Mormon doctrine.

Two of the purposes for baptism in the Mormon church are for, (1) the remission of sins, and (2) admitting the person into membership in the church (specifically the Mormon church as the only true church). The person who has not received a proper baptism, by means of a duly authorized representative of the church who has the priesthood, is still a sinner because their sins have not been remitted, are not members of the church and cannot hold the priesthood or participate in any action to which the priesthood is a part.

However, Joseph Smith claimed that he and Oliver Cowdery received the priesthood from John the Baptist in 1829, prior to their baptism, which makes their claim to priesthood authority to be invalid since neither was baptized as a member of the true church and their sins had not been remitted by means of baptism. No member of the Mormon church can hold the priesthood without first being baptized.

Not only that, Joseph Smith gave an account about how he baptized Oliver Cowdery and Oliver Cowdery baptized him and then they both conferred the Aaronic priesthood on each other after their baptisms, all the while claiming that they had both already received the priesthood from John the Baptist prior to their baptisms. Apparently John the Baptist forgot the reason for which he was named, because the entire issue could have been resolved without the confusion if he had just baptized both men prior to conferring the priesthood. But the issue remains that both men claim possession of priesthood authority that is invalid, and every Mormon traces their own priesthood authority back to that event.

I would assume then, that you agree that the doctrine of the Eternal Progression is not found in the Book of Mormon. The primary definition of eternal life, being exaltation to the highest level of the Celestial Kingdom, which is godhood, is not found in the Book of Mormon. So it does not contain the Mormon gospel at its most key point, and does not represent the restoration of the fullness of the Mormon gospel. I understand the attempt to claim that the attainment of Godhood was the original teaching found in the Christian gospel, because it is absolutely necessary to find the teaching in the Bible to make the claims of Joseph Smith and the church to be more legitimate. Your use of Psalm 82 is an attempt to support your belief in a polytheistic system that you claim was originally part of biblical teaching. The Mormon church would do well to identify itself with current Word of Faith theology, promoted by Benny Hinn, Kenneth Copeland and the late Kenneth Hagin, who adopt a similar claim in relation to the verses and use many Mormon concepts in their theology. However, if you attempt to use Psalm 82 as an example of Mormon godhood, then there are several problems that you must consider.

First, the term god in the verses, elohim, has several meanings, one of which can refer to angels, one can refer to deity and one can refer to political leaders or judges. You have chosen to apply the term as deity and I apply the term to political leaders for some very good reasons, and more properly to the religious leaders of Israel who were also judges, not the least of those reasons was the fact that Jesus Christ was directing His comments to the Jewish leaders when He made the same statement in John 10:34-35. The verses themselves define who the elohim are, and secondly, they define the character of those individuals:

a. They are judges - vs. 2.
b. They judge unjustly - vs. 2.
c. They judge with partiality to the wicked - vs. 2.
d. They do not protect the weak - vs. 3.
e. They do not protect the fatherless - vs, 3.
f. They do not do justice to the afflicted - vs. 3.
g. They do not do justice to the destitute - vs. 3.
h. They do not rescue the weak - vs. 4.
i. They do not rescue the needy - vs. 4.
j. They do not rescue the weak and needy from the control of the wicked - vs. 4.
k. They are ignorant - vs. 5.
l. They are in darkness - vs. 5.
m. They will die like men - vs. 6.
n. They will fall like any prince - vs. 7.

If the scene is considered to be an expression of an event in heaven, then there are very real problems with the character and morality of those gods as judges in the heavenly sphere. If the scene is considered to be an expression of an event on earth, then it must be explained how those gods became gods without first dying and being resurrected after which they would be exalted to godhood. The verses state that those gods would die in the future, vv. 6, 7, so how is it that a preexisting god will die? I am not aware that in Mormon theology there are any individuals who have obtained their exaltation to godhood prior to dying and being resurrected, with the exception of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, and even their exaltation to godhood seems to be a mystery to Mormon theologians because it has occurred outside the parameters of the Eternal Progression.

My response is similar to the one I give to my Word of Faith correspondents who claim that they are gods, and that is, If those characteristics define the nature and character of a Christian who claims to be a god or that of a Mormon god which you wish to become, then I will concede the verse to your point of view, but the God of the Bible possesses none of those deviant characteristics. I shudder to think that the heavenly sphere will be populated with a pantheon of Christian or Mormon gods with those same deviant characteristics.

The ante-Nicene fathers were not the final arbiters of Biblical doctrine, but I understand your attempt to ascribe to them at least a remnant of the current Mormon gospel of which it is claimed that they were aware. However, there are problems regarding your claim of support from the ante-Nicene fathers:

First, your claim is based on equivocation, presuming that out of the broad spectrum of beliefs and teachings about the substance of deification in relation to Christian salvation, that the ante-Nicene fathers were expressing singularly the specific Mormon version of deification and its relationship to God. That is simply a position that you cannot support, since all nine of the ante-Nicene fathers that you quoted held to a Trinitarian view of the godhead, so if they were asserting that deification was to become a God, then they were claiming to become part of a Trinitarian godhead, which is a logical impossibility and also in complete opposition to Mormon doctrine which rejects a Trinitarian godhead. A Trinitarian belief in the nature of the Godhead negates any possibility that a claim to deification represents in any manner the Mormon view of the eternal progression in relation to exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom.

Secondly, you presume that the meanings of the words used by the ante-Nicene fathers, theosis, deification, god and God are the same for the fathers as is defined in current Mormon theology. As you know, the majority of terms used in the Orthodox Christian church and the Mormon church do not have the same meaning. The terminology in reference to: God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, the Godhead, the fall, the virgin birth, salvation, salvation by grace, being born again, eternal life, the gospel, redemption, baptism, sons of God, heaven, Kingdom of God, eternal damnation-punishment and hell -- these terms all have radically different meanings to Orthodox Christians in comparison to Mormon theology.

Thirdly, you are attempting to support your supposition through a selective application of your sources, claiming that the statements of the ante-Nicene fathers regarding deification establish the existence of the Mormon doctrine in the early church, while at the same time not claiming that the statements of those same individuals in opposition to other Mormon doctrines do not negate the claims of the Mormon church to the validity those doctrines.

Fourthly, you are attempting to provide a foundation for your claims by what you define individuals to have claimed to believe. But your position is that not only do those statements confirm that the ante-Nicene fathers believed as Mormon doctrine states, but that their beliefs were based on Scripture, specifically Scripture that has all been removed from the Bible. But that is the very issue at hand, and if that was the case, then there should be in the writings of the ante-Nicene fathers some record, some quote from those Scriptures that have been lost, but that is not the case.

Fifthly, you presume that the ante-Nicene fathers adopted the same view regarding the fundamental nature of man as is taught in the Mormon church. The Mormon church teaches that human beings are all of the same species based on the Godhood of their father who literally procreated their spirits in a previous existence on another planet. Mormon Apostle John A. Widtsoe states the Mormon view of the nature of humanity in the following,

"In short, man is a god in embryo. He comes of a race of gods, and as his eternal growth continues, he will approach more nearly the position which to us is Godhood, and is everlasting in its power over the elements of the universe." He also said, "God and Man are of the same race . . . man is of the order of Gods. . . ."
---John A Widtsoe, A Rational Theology.

In Mormon theology, because all human beings have their origin through birth from a race of gods, the Eternal Progression is the acquisition and application of all the attributes of the father god transmitted through the race which are ultimately realized at and through exaltation.

However, that would not be the view of the ante-Nicene fathers that you quoted. None of them would affirm the origin of the human spirit to have been a procreation in some previous existence, but affirmed that humans were created beings and, as a result, there would not be any presumption on their part that human beings were entitled to the possibility of attaining to godhood because of a familial identification with their origin within the literal fatherhood of a deity.

None of those ante-Nicene fathers taught that God was once a man, but they affirmed a monotheistic God with no beginning and no end, which is just the opposite to Mormon theology. In Mormon theology, God does have a beginning and it is also possible that He could have an end. The ante-Nicene fathers affirmed a singular God to which no one else can even be compared, Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; 45:21; 46:9. The ante-Nicene fathers affirmed a God who grants attributes to human beings such as love, immortality and holiness, but not His unique attributes that identify Him as God, such as eternity, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence and immutability, and they never claimed to be able to obtain any of those attributes. The God of the Mormon church has not existed from eternigy, is not omniscient, is not omnipresent, is not omnipotent and is not immutable, so the ante-Nicene fathers were relating to a God who was defined as a fundamentally different being than the god found in the Mormon church. The Mormon teaching is that exaltation results in receiving all the attributes of the father God that are defined in Mormon theology which are considerably less substantial and enduring than those of the God of the Bible.

You apply the concept of "perfection" in relation to the origins of humanity as procreated beings within a race of gods, and conclude that "perfection" is to become perfect by obtaining all of the attributes of the father god from which they are literally descended. The root difficulty is that Mormon theology proposes and affirms that God, the universe and human beings are made of the same substance that is preexistent even to God, because the Mormon God does not create, he organizes existing matter in conjunction with His sons. In Mormon theology, the substance of matter is animate as a living organism, composed of living entities that pre-exist man, God and matter itself. However, in Orthodox theology, the substance of matter is inanimate and it is God who is preexistent to everything and creates ex-nihillo - from nothing, the universe and human beings. The origin of human beings is not as spirits procreated by God, but as beings created by God that are not of the same substance or composition as God and do not inherit the fundamental attributes that make God to be God, and obtain only those attributes granted by Him through their adoption by Him as sons. All other theological differences derive from these two opposing world views as the basic core difference between Orthodox and Mormon doctrine that is irreconcilable and makes any correlation of the ante-Nicene father's conception of deification to the Mormon concept of godhood to be impossible.

The problem with your interpretation of Jacob 2:27-30, is that you are selective in relation to your application of the "out". If God delights in chastity and then decides to raise up seed to himself, then why does he not command promiscuity, or concubinage? The passage does not just deal with polygamy. There is no moral difference between polygamy, promiscuity or concubinage.

If it is said that it would be a violation of his moral attributes to command promiscuity or concubinage, then you are faced with the dilemma of Jacob 2:15, in which polygamy was an abomination, which is a moral violation leading to damnation, while Doctrine and Covenants 132 states that God justifies the practitioner. Your premise is that polygamy becomes acceptable if it is commanded by god, so why does that not apply to any other act such as promiscuity? The difference between abomination and justification is not just in relation to raising up seed, because in Joseph Smith's revelation, polygamy became a necessity, as a new commandment and law from god that was not optional, and became an adjunct of the gospel message. No longer was part of the gospel message to refrain from polygamy, in the new revelation the gospel message was to engage in polygamy. The gospel message was changed from that found in the Book of Mormon which no longer contained the fullness of the gospel message, "For behold! I reveal unto you a new and an everlasting covenant, and if ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant, and be permitted to enter into my glory..." D and C 132:4.

The revelation on polygamy was much more comprehensive than the singular issue of raising up seed, because it created a new class of beings in the next life. Individuals who marry outside the elements of the revelation, meaning civil or religious marriages not validated by a Mormon marriage, have their marriages dissolved at death and they then become angels who minister to other more worthy constituents who have married properly in the Mormon church:

"Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither mary nor are given in marriage, but are appointed angels in heaven . . ," D&C, 132:16.

This is another aspect of the marriage relationship not revealed in the Book of Mormon and another state of being in the next life that is another change to the gospel message. This is part of the fundamental issue that divides Orthodox and Mormon doctrines, because angels in Mormon theology are the procreated spirits of the father god, while in Orthodox theology they are created beings who are not related to human beings, therefore, in Orthodox theology it is impossible for a human being to become an angel.

Marriage in the Mormon church which became marriage in the temple and its consequent sealings is revealed as a new standard for attaining the ultimate exaltation. Again, this is another aspect of the marriage relationship not revealed in the Book of Mormon and is another change to the gospel message of which the Book of Mormon says nothing in 3 Nephi 27:13-21 or in any other passage. In Orthodox doctrine, marriage is not a requirement to obtain the Orthodox definition of salvation.

In relation to your claim regarding the "out" in Jacob 2:30, nothing was stated by God in the revelation given to Joseph Smith that its purpose was in order for "him to raise up seed," but the revelation was given as a means to obtain exaltation which was the justification for its acceptance. The revelation on plural marriage was made public on July 12, 1843, but church officials claimed that the principles were known by Joseph Smith as early as 1831, and some claimed that the revelation itself was received in that year, but this has never been substantiated. Joseph Fielding Smith was unable to provide an exact date for the revelation, but claimed that there was another revelation said to have been given in July 1831, but it turned out to be nothing like what became public in 1843:
"Verily, I say unto you, that the wisdom of man, in his fallen state, knoweth not the purposes and the privileges of my holy priesthood, but ye shall know when ye receive a fullness by reason of the anointing: For it is my will, that in time, ye should take unto you wives of the Lamanites and Nephites, that their posterity may become white, delightsome and just, for even now their females are more virtuous than the gentiles."
---Joseph Smith, 1831
The polygamy that Joseph Smith advocated in 1831 was intermarriage between the Indian population and the members of the church. Again, the issue returns to Jacob 2:30 and the question is, Did God also give himself an "out" so that the practice of polygamy throughout continuing generations was for producing the preferred "white and delightsome" skin color instead of raising up seed to himself? The revelation claimed that the skin color of the Lamanites and Nephites would be changed to white as a result of intermarriage, a conclusion that is not entirely wrong, but also not entirely right in relation to genetics. However, the issue raised is the fact that what is being claimed is that there is a preferred skin color by which a person is judged to be more acceptable than if they have another skin shade.

What is being said in the revelation was that 2 Nephi 30:6 would be fulfilled through the institution of polygamy rather than by repentance and belief. Only a year after the publication of the Book of Mormon, the principles of 2 Nephi 5:22 in which repentance was the only way to reverse the curse of a dark skin, were changed and polygamy became the new cleansing agent, even though 2 Nephi 5:23 prohibited marriage with the Lamanites, "And cursed shall be the seed of him that mixeth with their seed; for they shall be cursed even with the same cursing. And the Lord spake it, and it was done."

It is taught in the church that polygamy commanded by god has been the norm in the Mormon gospel message, by which Abraham, David and Solomon were justified, or obtained their exaltation. It is even claimed that Jesus Christ was polygamous and was the primary reason that He was crucified. However, the nature of reconciliation to God in the Old Testament was never dependent on polygamy and polygamy was never connected with justification before God. The Mormon church cannot present any evidence that Jesus Christ was ever married, let alone had multiple wives. The biblical narrative states the reasons for His crucifixion that have no connection whatsoever with polygamy and the Book of Mormon makes no statement regarding Jesus Christ being married or having plural wives.

The question becomes, If polygamy was the means of exaltation in the Old Testament, the same as in the Mormon gospel as stated in Joseph Smith's revelation, and claimed to have been practiced by Jesus Christ Himself, then why was it not part of the gospel restored in the Book of Mormon, and why is the practice condemned in all references instead of it being advocated as part of the gospel message by which exaltation is obtained? All references to polygamy in the Book of Mormon, which would have been the substance of the gospel message, are in the negative rather than the positive. What happened after Abraham, David and Solomon by which polygamy became unknown to the point that it was not even part of the restoration of the gospel message in the Book of Mormon, and had to be revealed to Joseph Smith as a "new revelation" instead of a reestablished tenet? Why does the Book of Mormon state falsely that Abraham, David and Solomon were condemned for practicing polygamy when Joseph Smith's revelation says that they were justified? Apparently, the Book of Mormon does not represent the fullness of the restored Mormon gospel, since one of the major required key elements of exaltation is missing.

The apostle Paul stated that a person who aspired to the office of an overseer (leader, bishop, elder, pastor), was to be the husband of one wife, so in relation to the Mormon gospel, those offices must be exempt from the requirement of plural marriage for exaltation. It might be claimed by the church that 1 Timothy 3:1 represents a mistranslation of the original Scripture or has been added, but the burden of proof for that claim again is the responsibility of the church to substantiate. If, in 1831, Joseph Smith received the revelation on polygamy made public in 1843, then every statement by Joseph Smith or any other general authority of the church denying that polygamy was being advocated or practiced was a lie, including the denials in the Book of Commandments, chapter 52 - 1833, the Doctrine and Covenants, section 101 - 1835 and Joseph Smith's address to the saints on May 26, 1844, less than a month before his murder. Not only did Joseph Smith proclaim himself innocent of the charge of practicing polygamy (at least since as early as 1833), but he also stated that William Law, who had brought the charges against him, had lied about the fact, so Joseph Smith did what God states was forbidden in Mosiah 13:23,.and bore false witness against another person. I understand the current claim that Joseph Smith and the others were only obeying god's command to keep the practice secret, but it is a strange god indeed who commands an action that gives a person no option but to break a previous command and it is stranger still that he commands a prophet to state that another person is a liar when the accused had actually told the truth. It is also strange that an element of the gospel message to be preached to the entire world is to be kept as a secret from that same world who must accept a gospel about which they are not completely apprised of the content.

I think that Joseph Smith's conduct in relation to the revelation on polygamy claimed to have been given to him by God, speaks for itself. Again, the question returns to Jacob 2:30. Did God give himself an "out" that justifies that type of conduct on the part of a Prophet and the continuing conduct of numerous future prophets of the church?

What Joseph Smith may or may not have been as a great mind is not the issue, and his personal abilities are not the determinants of truth. I find it interesting that throughout the history of the Mormon church it has consistently been claimed that the Book of Mormon is true because it could not have been created by a person who was as uneducated and backward as a country rustic like Joseph Smith, therefore it must have been given to him by revelation. I never found that argument to have any relevance at all, because lack of an education does not correlate to a lack of ability, and it is also apparent that Joseph Smith was not uneducated to the degree that was being claimed, his natural abilities were significantly greater than the church wished to admit and his social and political connections were much wider than stated.

"Natural ability without education has more often attained to glory and virtue than education without natural ability."
---Cicero, Roman author, orator, & politician

Ellen G. White, founder of Seventh-day Adventism, only had four or five years of education. She wrote over 5,000 articles and 40 books.

Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science, had no formal education, but was taught by her brother who was a student at Dartmouth College. She wrote the "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures," and founded the "Christian Science Monitor" newspaper. Muhammad, the founder of Islam, had no formal education but wrote the Koran and founded the second largest religious organization in the world.

But now that the reinvented Joseph Smith is considered to be one of the greatest minds of the 19th century, the old argument will have to be abandoned. It may have been convenient in the past to present Joseph Smith as a simple country boy in order to bolster the claim that he could not have written the Book of Mormon on his own based on his educational background, however, he considered himself to be brilliant as revealed in his own assessment of himself:

"If they want a beardless boy to whip all the world, I will get on the top of the mountain and crow like a rooster. I shall always beat them... I have more to boast of than ever any man had. I am the only man that has ever been able to keep a whole church together since the days of Adam. A large majority of the whole have stood by me. Neither Paul, John, Peter, nor Jesus ever did it. I boast that no man ever did such a work as I. The followers of Jesus ran away from Him, but the Latter-day Saints never ran away from me yet."
History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 408-409

"God made Aaron to be the mouth piece for the children of Israel, and He will make me be god to you in His stead, and the elders to be mouth for me; and if you don't like it, you must lump it."
History of the Church, vol. 6, pp. 319-320

"Is not here one greater than Solomon, who built a Temple with the treasures of his father David and with the assistance of Huram (sic), King of Tyre? Joseph Smith has built his Temple with no one to aid him in the work."
Josiah Quincy quoting Joseph Smith, cited in Figures of the Past as cited in Among the Mormons, p. 138.

One of the difficulties inherent in the church is the fact that it takes outside sources and attempts to apply them to Mormon doctrine, such as the statements of the ante-Nicene fathers, but especially the revelatory claims of Joseph Smith. This is apparent in relation to the curse of a dark skin given to the Lamanites, Alma 3, and the association with the concept of a black skin being the substance of the curse on Cain and then applying the claimed revelatory translation of the Book of Abraham by Joseph Smith in relation to Abraham 1:21-27. The Book of Abraham proclaimed a revelation regarding a prohibition by god against all persons with black skin from holding the priesthood. The prohibition seemed to confirm what was stated in Alma about the curse of a dark skin and the teachings about persons with black skin not being valiant in the preexistence, which resulted in their black skin in the temporal life, identifying them as descendants of Cain. God himself was claimed to have established the prohibition, according to the