Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ucla-cs.ARPA Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!trwrba!cepu!ucla-cs!wales From: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Mormonism (comments on anti-Mormon tract) Message-ID: <4728@ucla-cs.ARPA> Date: Tue, 9-Apr-85 13:36:18 EST Article-I.D.: ucla-cs.4728 Posted: Tue Apr 9 13:36:18 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 14-Apr-85 02:04:12 EST References: <995@vax135.UUCP> <996@vax135.UUCP> Reply-To: wales@ucla-cs.UUCP (Rich Wales) Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department Lines: 278 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dic- tates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may." LDS Articles of Faith, #11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Some comments are in order regarding Ken Swanson's articles contrasting Latter-day Saint (Mormon) beliefs with those of evangelical Protestant- ism (as put forth by the "American Tract Society" of Garland, Texas). Statements in this article regarding the beliefs of other churches are made to the best of my personal knowledge and are intended to be non- inflammatory. If I have inadvertently misstated the teachings of some other group, I hope someone who knows better will step in and set the record straight. (1) The Bible and other scriptures. Not only does our view of the Bible differ somewhat from that of most other Christians (evangelical Protestants in particular), but it also differs from what many other Christians think our view is! The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does believe in the Bible. However, unlike many other Christian churches, we do not be- lieve that the Bible in its current form is a complete, error-free guide to Christian life. In our view, there are at least three main reasons why the Bible as we now have it is incomplete: (a) Many writings have been lost which, if we had them, would be just as important and useful to mankind as the surviving books. (b) In many cases, the writings which have come down to us have been added to, taken from, and/or "altered in place". Some of these changes can be seen by comparing different texts (for example, there are differences between the Masoretic OT text and the Sep- tuagint), but many (even most) of the changes are unfindable be- cause they predate the oldest manuscripts available today. (c) Most importantly, we believe, the books of the Bible were never intended -- either by their individual authors or by God Himself -- to be a self-contained, all-encompassing handbook to the be- liever. Central to our faith is the idea that God's followers in all times and places should be led by ongoing revelation of His will to living prophets and spokesmen. I realize that many churches -- particularly the evangelical Protes- tant churches -- believe strongly in the idea that the Bible is "the Word, the whole Word, and nothing but the Word". Such groups would reject my point (c) above altogether, and argue that points (a) and (b) have been overruled by divine providence and intervention so as to allow us to have a perfect, infallible Bible. To such people, my suggestion that the Bible is less than 100% perfect probably sounds like a total rejection of the Bible and everything it teaches. All I can say, for what it may be worth, is that no Latter-day Saint who understands and practices his/her religion rejects the Bible in any such way as most "anti-Mormon" literature would have one suppose. Such scriptural passages as Deuteronomy 4:2, II Timothy 3:15-16, and Revelation 22:18-19 are frequently cited as evidence that the Bible is complete, and that anyone who purports to bring forth additional revelation from God must by definition be a charlatan. The LDS view is that these passages, and others like them, simply point out that man cannot presume, on his own, to change what God has said. If God chooses to reveal more to us, no Bible passage can possibly forbid Him from doing so. In particular, we believe that Joseph Smith was specifically chosen by our Saviour, Jesus Christ, as His spokesman for our day -- just as Peter and the other Apostles were chosen for this purpose in the first century A.D. Hence, when Joseph Smith brought forth the Book of Mormon and other modern-day revelation, he was not making unau- thorized changes/additions to scripture, any more than the writings of the Apostle Paul could be called unauthorized additions to the Jewish scriptures (from the Christian point of view, of course -- I realize that Judaism would disagree). The Book of Mormon is, in our belief, an item of modern-day revela- tion given through Joseph Smith. It is a condensed religious record (slightly more than 500 pages long) of a group of people who lived in the Western Hemisphere. In its orientation it is heavily Chris- tian throughout, and (to me) one of the most moving portions of the entire book is the section (III Nephi 11-26) where the resurrected Jesus Christ appears to the people, teaches them, and sets up His church among them. To those who would be tempted to dismiss the Book of Mormon out of hand, I would urge you not to be satisfied with what other people say about it (be they Mormons like me, or writers of anti-Mormon tracts). Rather, get a copy of the Book of Mormon and read it for yourself with an open mind and an open heart. The reason Joseph Smith said 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" (History of the Church, v.4, p.461 -- not p.161 as incorrectly stated in the tract) is twofold: (a) Since the Book of Mormon was translated directly from the orig- inal record by a divinely inspired prophet, it does not suffer from problems in transmission down through the ages -- except possibly for minor clerical errors here and there in the course of writing down the original documents, translating them into English, or publishing the result. (b) More importantly, the very existence of the Book of Mormon is evidence of the calling and responsibility given to Joseph Smith, and an indirect witness to the truth of the other things he said and did. Hence, if someone comes to know the truth of the Book of Mormon, he will be led to the other truths that God has restored to the earth through His modern-day prophets. (As an incidental note to those who read my previous article about Mormon sources, the "Documentary History of the Church" referred to in the tract is an informal name for "History of the Church" -- Joseph Smith's journal. The longer name is sometimes used in order to help distinguish it from B. H. Roberts' "Comprehensive History of the Church".) Again, I'm sure that some people will inevitably interpret Joseph's comment as a wholesale indictment of the Bible -- but, again, this was not his intent at all, and the people he was talking to realized exactly what he meant. Rather than cut down the Bible, we believe that the contributions of Joseph Smith and his successors help us to understand the Bible and live the teachings contained therein. When you consider the vast number of Christian churches today -- all (or just about all) of which claim to believe the Bible, but which frequently disagree vehemently on many matters of vital importance -- the idea that God might appoint another spokesman for our time to set people straight should not really be that unreasonable. After all, the Christians of the first century had the apostles right there with them to teach them -- are we really so much better off than those people that we don't need living, inspired leaders and can make do with fragments of the writings of the early Saints? (2) The virgin birth. Ken's tract states that Mormons believe Christ was conceived through sexual intercourse between God the Father and the virgin Mary. Two comments: (a) The three sources quoted in the tract do not substantiate this claim. Rather, the point made by the sources is actually that even though the conception of Christ was accomplished through the power of the Holy Ghost, the Saviour was not fathered by the Holy Ghost, but was literally the Son of God the Father. Nowhere is the phrase "sexual intercourse", or any of its com- monly understood euphemisms, used in any of the statements cited (nor any others I am aware of). (By the way, the reference to page 547 of Bruce R. McConkie's encyclopedic work "Mormon Doctrine" has to be an error. I as- sume the correct reference is to the article on "Virgin Birth" on page 745 of this book. The other two sources are speeches by Brigham Young, made in 1852 and 1857 respectively.) To my knowledge, no authoritative statements have been made by LDS Church leaders regarding the exact technical means or phys- ical mechanism used to bring about the conception of Jesus. The noted LDS scholar James E. Talmage, in his 1915 magnum opus "Jesus the Christ", said (on page 81) that Jesus was begotten "not in violation of natural law but in accordance with a higher manifestation thereof"; from this I think one can safely con- clude that some sort of "miracle" was involved. (b) More to the point, though, I suspect the real basis of the ob- jection is that the writers of the tract in question consider physical matter in general, and sexuality in particular, to be inherently evil -- and the idea that God might both have a physical body and participate in any kind of sex relationship to be blasphemous. This concept goes back at least as far as the first-century Gnostics -- no doubt farther still. Some of the early Gnostic versions of Christianity even went so far, I understand, as to teach that Jesus never really had a physical body at all -- that it was all an illusion -- for the idea that God would associate so intimately with evil matter as to take a physical body was too much for them. While this particular interpretation did die out, other people taught that the "original sin" of Adam and Eve was sexual in nature -- an idea which I believe is still quite prevalent in the thinking of many Christians today. Let me simply say that the Latter-day Saints do not believe any of these teachings regarding matter or sex being evil in and of themselves. (3) Nature of God and man. Our beliefs regarding God and man do admittedly differ from those of most other Christians (particularly those of the authors of Ken's tract). Since the tract did not really adequately explain what we believe (I don't really think that was its intent), let me see if I can do better. The following is admittedly a highly abbreviated effort to produce a sketchy outline of an involved subject. It is definitely an LDS belief that we are all children of God, our Heavenly Father, in the literal sense that our spirits were begotten by Him and lived with Him before we were born here on the earth. This life on earth is meant to be a test of our faith and determina- tion. If we pass it, we will be able to return to Heavenly Father's presence and eventually become like He is. (There are some passages in the Bible which support this view, by the way: for instance, see Matthew 5:48, Romans 8:17, Galatians 4:1-7, I John 3:2, and Revela- tion 3:21.) When I speak of "passing" the test of earth life, I am implicitly taking into account that we must accept Christ's atone- ment for our sins in order to "pass"; without Him, nothing we might do would mean anything at all. Provision is made, by the way, for those who didn't have an opportunity to accept and follow Christ in this life, but who would have if they had had the chance. Becoming like our Heavenly Father means, among other things, that we will be able to have our own "spirit children" and help them through the same path of growth through their own life on their own earth. "We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost" (Articles of Faith, #1), but we do not accept the traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity and do not believe that it is taught in the Bible. We believe the refer- ences to "oneness" of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost mean that they are completely and perfectly united in all their thoughts and purposes. A prime example of this can be found in John 18:21 (read the entire chapter for context), in which Jesus prays that his followers may all be one in the same way as He and His Father are one. We believe that we will regain our physical bodies in the Resurrec- tion and keep them throughout eternity. We believe that Heavenly Father has a physical body, like ours except that His is glorified and perfected (as ours will be after the Resurrection). We believe that marriage and family life are eternal concepts, and that marriage can (and should) last for eternity. By corollary, we believe that our Heavenly Father is eternally married. We believe that Jesus was the firstborn of our Heavenly Father's spirit children, and that He distinguished Himself to such an extent by His understanding, obedience, and righteousness that He was se- lected to be the Redeemer of mankind before this earth was formed. Moreover, essentially all of our Heavenly Father's dealings with us here on earth have been conducted by and through Jesus Christ -- even before His mortal birth. We believe that Adam and Eve's transgression in the Garden of Eden was a necessary part of God's plan for us. We do not share the beliefs of some who feel that Adam and Eve frustrated God's original plan. We reject the traditional Christian concept of original sin, and we do not believe that children need to be baptized for the re- mission of sins. In fact, we do not even customarily refer to Adam and Eve's action as a "sin", since sin in our view requires under- standing of good and evil -- something which Adam and Eve did not possess until after they had partaken of the fruit of the tree so named. Many Christians misunderstand LDS teachings regarding the nature of God, and believe that we are seeking to make God in our image or pull Him down to our level. In fact, quite the opposite is true: God created man in His own image (Genesis 1:27) -- something which, as you can see, we believe quite literally -- and it will be to His everlasting glory and credit that He can pull us up to His level if we are willing to obey Him. I hope the above has cleared up a few things in the minds of the readers of "net.religion" regarding what we Mormons really believe. To those who feel that the LDS Church is trying to deceive people, and that anti- Mormon tracts are better sources of correct information than statements by the Mormons themselves, I hope you will realize that what I have written in this article -- thought admittedly not by any means exhaust- ive -- is not an attempt at deception. -- Rich Wales // UCLA Computer Science Department // +1 213-825-5683 3531 Boelter Hall // Los Angeles, California 90024 // USA wales@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA {ihnp4,ucbvax}!ucla-cs!wales