Mr. Wade Englund's
Evolving or Changing Doctrines?
A HOUSE OF STRAW OR A HOUSE OF BRICK?
by John Farkas
INTRODUCTION
Wade Englund, an LDS apologist
(an anti-anti-Mormon), has responded to two articles I have on my web page
(http://www.bcmmin.org), Evolution of the Mormon God,
#D-7 and Teachings of The Mormon Church Compared - Past and Present,
#D-9. Mr. Englund's article, Evolving or Changing Doctrines, can
be found at: http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/Evolving.htm
Let me first start with
a statement by Joseph Smith and a quote from the Book of Mormon.
Now taking it for granted that the scriptures
say what they mean, and mean what they say, we have sufficient grounds
to go on and prove from the Bible that the gospel has always been the same...
(Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 264, 1842)
...the scriptures are before you; if ye will
wrest them it shall be to your own destruction. (Alma 13:20)
In other words we should let the Scriptures tell us the message,
in its context. I ask you to apply the thoughts expressed in these quotations
(note the bold face type words) as you read the quotations below from the
Bible, Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants. Then compare the meaning
you obtain from them to what Mr. Englund says in his article. I found that
Mr. Englund did not do this. I found that his interpretation of the early
teachings of his church are based on what his church now teaches. The present
day teachings of his church are coloring what he thinks the early Scripture
verses mean. Mr. Englund seems to reject the ideas in "scriptures say what
they mean and mean what they say." He is wresting the Scriptures. As I
show below, Mr. Englund has built his house of straw.
FROM EVERLASTING TO EVERLASTING?
1) On page 1, under First Question, Premise "A" item
1 and 2, Mr. Englund seems to think that Moroni 7:22 is only speaking about
the omniscience of God, not the eternity of God as God. But what he seems
to have missed is that God could only have these attributes from "everlasting
to everlasting" if He himself was God at the same time. The attributes
of God (mercy as in Ps 103:17; infinite understanding as in Ps 147:4-5;
a throne as in Ps 93:2) from everlasting to everlasting could only belong
to God. On top of it, as Mr. Englund seems to recognize, Ps 90:2 has the
same thing, even clearer.
...even from everlasting to everlasting thou art
God. (Ps 90:2)
Note that this verse is saying that God, as God, is from
everlasting to everlasting. All these biblical verses were unchanged in
the Joseph Smith Translation of the Bible, thus showing that in
1833 he agreed with them. Several of the Book of Mormon verses I
quote in my articles say the same thing. There is more on this issue in
item #2 below.
The Lecture Third of Faith
in the 1835 D&C, pages 36-41(1) [this is an end note]
used some of the same biblical verses I used above (Ps 103:17, 18, 90:2;
Malachi 3:6; Numbers 23:19) about the attributes of God and the writer
(Joseph Smith) (2) did not give the spin to them that Mr. Englund
has attempted. In this same lecture, verses 14, 15, 19 and part of 21 on
pages 38-40 we find,
Secondly, that he [God] is merciful, and gracious,
slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting
to everlasting. Thirdly, That he changes not, neither is there variableness
with him; but that he is the same from everlasting to everlasting, being
the same yesterday to-day and forever; and that his course is one eternal
round, without variation... An acquaintance with these attributes in
the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith
of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. For
if he did not, in the first instance, believe him to be God, that is, the
creator and upholder of all things, he could not center his faith in him
for life and salvation, for fear there should be a greater than he, who
would thwart all his plans, and he, like the Gods of the heathen, would
be unable to fulfil his promises; but seeing he is God over all, from
everlasting to everlasting, the creator and upholder of all things,
no such fear can exist in the minds of those who put their trust in him,
so that in this respect their faith can be without wavering....that
he is a God who changes not...he is the same yesterday, to-day and forever
and that course is one eternal round. (Lecture Third of Faith in the 1835
D&C, pages 39-40, verses 14-15, 19, 21
Note that "he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting...who
changes not...same yesterday, to-day and forever." This is why Smith could
say in his 1844 King Follet Discourse, "We have imagined and supposed that
God was God from all eternity." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
page 345). In other words Smith is saying that he now knows differently,
that he was wrong since 1830. There is more on this subject in item 2 below.
Some discussion about
the term "everlasting" and "eternity" is worth presenting here as Mr. Englund
attempts to revise the usual meaning of these words. One path that
Smith could have taken in his King Follet Discourse was to change the meaning
of "eternity." But he did not, he let the usual understanding stand. He
didn't say, "We had a misunderstanding of what ‘eternity' means."
He ignored the word and changed the attribute of God, that the Father was
not God, as God, eternally. As another example, Smith did use in Moses
7:35 [1830], D&C 76:44 [1832] and 19:10 [1830] the term "endless" and
"eternal" as God's name but here also he did not redefine the meaning.
Smith's apparent understanding
of "eternity" is also supported by a modern teaching manual published by
the Mormon church.
Eternal: Everlasting, without beginning
or end.
Eternity: Time without end
(Gospel Principles, page 379, 1997 edition)
The 1981 edition, page 353, included the following
in the list:
Everlasting: Lasting or enduring forever
Forever: Always, no end, eternal.
We can see that while Mr. Englund would like to change the
definitions of "eternity," "eternal" and "everlasting" one of his church's
teaching manuals and Joseph Smith do not agree. Whom do you think we should
pay attention to?
SMITH CHANGES HIS TEACHING
2) On page 2, under First Question, Premise "B" item
1, Mr. Englund said with regard to the above King Follet Discourse quote,
"Also, no evidence is presented to suggest that Joseph Smith himself, saw
this as a "change in his teachings." The answer was so obvious to me that
I did not see a need to restate it. It was underlined and bolded in my
article and is repeated just three lines above Mr. Englund's statement.
Smith said,
We have imagined and supposed that God was God from
all eternity. I will refute that idea and take away the veil, so that you
may see. (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 345)
With this statement Smith is admitting he is making
a change. Note the "We have imagined and supposed...." It
cannot be said any clearer. As I demonstrated above, Smith did at one time
teach that God was God from eternity.
At the end of item 1 Mr.
Englund says, "As a member myself, I can see no ‘change' in teachings;
but only a different and perhaps added perspective of the attributes of
God." God being from all eternity and then changed to not being from all
eternity is not a major change? It is only an added perspective? To me
it is obvious that Joseph Smith introduced a major change when he said
that God was no longer God from all eternity and was really once a man
who progressed to become a God.
At this same location,
near the end of item 2, Mr. Englund says, "...there is more than one connotation
of the term `God' as understood by Joseph Smith..." Yes, I understand this
concept in today's Mormonism, but to say this about Smith's early teachings
is easier to say than showing it. Mr. Englund's "Connotation #8 and 9"
do not support his idea about what he thinks Smith had in mind. Keep in
mind that Smith said, "the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what
they say." This means they don't mean what we would like them to say,
even in light of new teaching, but what they do say. There is more on this
in item 4 below.
As for the exact time
frame Smith started to significantly change his teachings, I said in the
Summary of Evolution of the Mormon God..., "....from 1830 to about
1842." Even though it was highlighted in my own book, I forgot about Smith's
statement given in January 5, 1841,
That which is without body, parts and passions
is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh
and bones." (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, page 181)
In any event, January 1841 is not inconsistent with "....about
1842."
Under Premise "B", at
the end of item 2, Mr. Englund seems to have missed that it is the man
Jesus who needed to grow and progress. He uses Hebrews 2:10, 5:8; Luke
1:80, 13:32 to illustrate his point. But he has forgotten Philippians 2:6-8
which says,
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon
him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man... (Phil 2:6-8)
As an aside, this verse is also interesting for other reasons.
Note the, "being in the form of God...and took upon him the form of a servant...likeness
of men...fashion as a man." If the premortal Jesus, as LDS say, was already
in the shape of a man (as a spirit), then why the change in the description
of Him as a man? He was supposedly already, according to LDS teachings,
the "likeness of men...fashioned as a man" prior to becoming a man. (Ether
3:8-17)
As for Matthew 5:48 and
its "Be ye therefore perfect," I suggest the reader see my article F-2
(on my web page), "Be Ye Perfect and the Grace of God."
IMMUTABILITY OF GOD
Under First Question,
Premise "C", item 2 (page 3) Mr. Englund shows his ignorance of the immutability,
unchangeability, of God. He presents what he thinks is a contradiction
in Christian thought when he says that the idea that God being unchangeable,
everlasting, the same yesterday, today and forever are contradictory to
"...that Christ existed as a premortal spirit person, and became a man
on earth, died and was resurrected..." He then says that this being the
case with Christ, then it is not unreasonable for God the Father to have
once been a man that progressed to Godhood. Mr. Englund has missed
two major items in presenting his position.
One is that God's omnipresence,
omniscience and omnipotence allow for such so called "changes." If God
could not do whatever He wanted, within the nature of His Godliness, then
He would not be omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent. But He reigns,
He is in charge, He is sovereign. The Bible is very clear that God can
reveal himself to us as he wishes - as an angel, in a bush, as Jesus Christ
and any other way He chooses. It is God's essence, His Godliness, His holiness,
His truth, His self existence, His omnipresence, omniscience and omnipotence,
His salvation message to the world and many other attributes that are unchanging
(Heb 6:17-18; Ps 19:7-11; 1 Peter 1:4, 15-16; James 1:17). It is in this
sense that God is unchangeable, everlasting, the same yesterday, today
and forever. The second item, an item that Mr. Englund is blind to, is
that He is God, as God, and never was anything else but God. And there
is no room in these attributes for God the Father to have once been a man
who progressed to power, glory and Godhood. There is more on this under
item 1 above.
In addition, Joseph Smith
in the early years of his church taught the immutability of God and that
God, as God, always was God (Mormon 9:19; Moroni 8:18; D&C 20:12, 17,
28 [1830], 39:1 [1831], 76:4 [1832]; 98:3 [1833]; 104:2 [1834]; Moses 1:3-6
[1831]). More about the immutability of God can be found at the following
addresses.
1. http://www.westworld.com/~josephgr/immutab.html
2. http://capo.org/sermons/attrib/immutability2.html
3. http://www.spurgeon.org/sermons/0170.htm
4. http://www.founders.org/library/boyce1/ch7.html
More articles on the immutability of God can be found
using the search engine AltaVista. It can be found at: http://altavista.com/
LECTURE FIFTH OF FAITH
TWO PERSONAGES - PERSONAGE OF SPIRIT
3) On page 4-5, under Third Question, under Premise "A",
item 1 and page 7 under Fourth Question, under Premise "B" item 2, Mr.
Englund addresses the use of "two personages" and "personage" of spirit
as used in "Lecture Fifth of Faith." Let us first read this Lecture. The
end of verse 1, all of verse two, part of verse three and part of the question
- answer section, pages 52-57 in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants has:
1. .... We shall, in this lecture speak of the
Godhead: we mean the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
2. There are two personages who constitute the
great matchless, governing and supreme power over all things--by whom
all things were created and made, that are created and made, whether visible
or invisible: whether in heaven, on earth, or in the earth, under the earth,
or throughout the immensity of space--They are the Father and the Son:
The Father being a personage of spirit, glory and power: possessing
all perfection and fulness: The Son, who was in the bosom of the Father,
a personage of tabernacle, made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in
the form and likeness of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness,
and in his image;-- he is also the express image and likeness of the
personage of the Father: possessing all the fulness of the Father, or,
the same fulness with the Fathe[r]; being begotten of him, and was ordained
from before the foundation of the world to be a propitiation for the sins
of all those who should believe in his name, and is called the Son because
of the flesh--and descended in suffering below that which man can suffer,
or, in other words, suffered greater sufferings, and was exposed to more
powerful contradictions than any man can be. But notwithstanding all this,
he kept the law of God, and remained without sin: Showing thereby that
it is in the power of man to keep the law and remain also without sin.
And also, that by him a righteous judgment might come upon all flesh, and
that all who walk not in the law of God, may justly be condemned by the
law, and have no excuse for their sins. And he being the only begotten
of the Father, full of grace and truth, and having overcome, received a
fulness of the glory of the Father--possessing the same mind with the
Father, which mind is the Holy Spirit, that bears record of the Father
and the Son, and these three are one, or in other words, these three
constitute the great, matchless, governing and supreme power over all things:
by whom all things were created and made, that were created and made: and
these three constitute the Godhead, and are one: The Father and the Son
possessing the same mind, the same wisdom, glory, power and fulness:
Filling all in all--the Son being filled with the fulness of the Mind,
glory and power, or, in other words, the Spirit, glory and power of
the Father--possessing all knowledge and glory, and the same kingdom:
sitting at the right hand of power, in the express image and likeness of
the Father--a Mediator for man--being filled with the fulness of the Mind
of the Father, or, in other words, the Spirit of the Father: which Spirit
is shed forth upon all who believe on his name and keep his commandments:
and all those who keep his commandments shall grow up from grace to grace,
and become heirs of the heavenly kingdom, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ;
possessing the same mind, being transformed into the same image or likeness,
even the express image of him who fills all in all: being filled with the
fulness of his glory, and become one in him, even as the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit are one.
3. ...As the Son partakes of the fulness of the
Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be
partakers of the same fulness, to enjoy the same glory; for the Father
and Son are one, so in like manner the saints are to be one in them...
(page 54)
Q. How many personages are there in the Godhead?
(p.55)
A. Two: the Father and the Son.....
Q. What is the Father? (p.55)
A. He is a personage of glory and power....
Q. What is the Son? (p.56)
A. First, he is a personage of tabernacle.
Q. Do the Father and Son possess the same mind?
(p. 57)
A. They do...
Q. What is this mind?
A. The Holy Spirit...
(1835 Doctrine and Covenants, Lecture Fifth of Faith,
5:1-3, pages 53-57)
First note that at the end of verse 1 it says it will speak
of the Godhead. Then it goes on to name those who are part of the Godhead
- the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. At the start of verse 2 we find again
the definition of the Godhead, similar as at the end of verse 1, but here
it tells us that the Godhead has two personages, where it says, "two personages
who constitute the great matchless, governing and supreme power over all
things." Further on in verse 2 we find, "these three constitute the great,
matchless, governing and supreme power over all things." Who are these
three? The Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Who is the Holy Spirit? The mind
of God. But only the Father and Son are personages. From this we
learn that the Holy Spirit is part of the Godhead, but is not a personage,
otherwise Smith would have said so, because he was speaking about the Godhead
and those in it.
Yes, in verse 2 we do
find, "made, or fashioned like unto man, or being in the form and likeness
of man, or, rather, man was formed after his likeness, and in his image."
But all Smith could have meant with this is that the Father and Son
are shaped like a man, or really, man is shaped like the Father and Son.
But these words by themselves say nothing about what this shape is made
of. We do learn from verse 2 above that the Father is a personage of spirit
(not flesh and bones) and the Son a personage of tabernacle (of flesh and
bones). And this is repeated twice. There is more on the "image of God"
under item #7 below.
What Mr. Englund seemed
to have ignored is that the third person of the Godhead in present day
Mormonism is the Holy Ghost, not the Holy Spirit (D&C 130:22). While
"Holy Ghost" is sometimes used interchangeably with "Holy Spirit," "Spirit
of the Lord" and others, the Holy Ghost formally is not the Holy Spirit
(Mormon Doctrine, pages 358-359; Encyclopedia of Mormonism,
pages 2:649-650). An example of the complexity of this is explained
in Mormon Doctrine, pages 361-362 under "Holy Spirit" and then pages
752-753 under "Spirit Of The Lord".
It seems that the word
"Holy Spirit," Holy Ghost," "God," "everlasting," "forever," "eternity,"
"eternal," "gospel" and many other words in today's Mormonism are Humpty
Dumpty words. (3). These words now mean what they want them to mean,
not what they did mean. For example, in early Mormonism the Holy Spirit
and Holy Ghost clearly were identical.
The Holy Ghost being a
personage was a later addition to Mormon teachings. Doctrine and Covenants
130:22, calls the Holy Ghost a personage of spirit. While this revelation
is dated April 1843, it was not published in any of the LDS periodicals
of the period and probably not generally distributed to the general LDS
members until after 1855 (Journal of Discourses 3:39, 18:291-292,
23:173). It did not find its way into LDS Scripture until the 1876 edition
of the D&C and not accepted by the membership until the October 1880
general conference (The Ensign, December 1984, pages 37-38).
While the term "Holy Ghost"
is the predominate usage in the 1830 edition of the Book of Mormon, the
term "Holy Spirit" is used and as a member of the Godhead in the Book of
Alma, chapter 8, page 254 (Alma 11:44).
...and shall be brought and be arraigned before
the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit,
which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether
they be good or whether they be evil. (Alma 11:44)
Note the use of the singular verb, "is one Eternal
God," and not "are." And in Alma 11:22 note that the person making the
statement, Amulek, says, "...for I shall say nothing which is contrary
to the Spirit of the Lord."
Mr. Englund attempts to
explain away the term "The Father being a personage of spirit..." What
he seemed to miss is that this term, "personage of spirit" is the exact
same term used in D&C 130:22 to describe the Holy Ghost.
"...but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh
and bones, but is a personage of Spirit."
And in contrast, note how the Son is described in the Fifth
Lecture on Faith - "a personage of tabernacle." In others words He has
a physical body.
Mr. Englund then tries
to explain that there are "two different Holy Ghosts," (page 8 under Fourth
Question, Premise "E" item 2) Why did Smith not know this when he gave
the "Lecture Fifth of Faith?" Note how Smith said, "There are two personages."
He did not say three personages as now taught in D&C 130:22 given in
1843. Also the Holy Spirit, a part of the Godhead, is portrayed in this
lecture as the mind shared by the Father and Son, "which mind is the Holy
Spirit" (page 53). For more on this see my article #D-9, page 2.
As I said in my article, Teachings
of The Mormon Church Compared - Past and Present, #D-9, starting on
page 1, saying that the Father is a personage of spirit is consistent with
many Book of Mormon verses. Mr. Englund says that these verses are really
speaking about the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ, who was a spirit at this
time. Yes, this is correct, but, it should be noted that the context of
Mosiah 15:3-5 and Lecture Fifth of faith 5:1-2, shown above, make it clear
that the Father is a spirit. But The Book of Alma and The Book of Mosiah
clearly say there is only one God, as do other parts of the Book of Mormon
(2 Nephi 31:21 and the end of the testimony (prayer) of the Three Witnesses).
As Mr. Englund recognizes,
the term God within Mormonism usually refers to God the Father (Mormon
Doctrine, by Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, page 317). As a result it is
reasonable to assume that all the verses given refer to the Father. What
he has missed is that Alma 31:15 says, "...and thou wilt be a spirit forever."(4)
According to LDS teachings the Son was not a spirit forever. The Father
being a spirit is also supported by Mosiah 15:4-5, which is
speaking of the Son after taking on a body.
And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal
Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming subject to
the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth temptation,
and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth
himself to be mocked, and scourged, and cast out,
and disowned by his people. (Mosiah 15:4-5)
This statement by an alleged prophet of God, Abinadi, has
the Son, with His body, being subject to the Spirit, that is the Father.
The Father is Spirit according to these early LDS verses.
Under Second Question,
Premise "C" near the end of item 1 Mr. Englund uses part of verse 3 in
the Fifth Lecture on Faith to show how the Father and Son are one, "As
the Son partakes of the fulness of the Father through the Spirit, so the
saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fulness, to
enjoy the same glory; for the Father and Son are one, so in like manner
the saints are to be one in them..." (page 54). First of all it is
interesting to note what is not said - that "the Father, Son and Holy
Spirit are one." In addition note how the "saints are to be one" -
they are one in the Father and Son. They are not one as the Father
and Son are one, but are one in the Father and Son.
A PLURALITY OF GODS ALWAYS PREACHED?
4) On page 4, under Second Question, under Premise "C",
near the end of item 1 Mr. Englund uses two statements by Joseph Smith
made in 1843 and 1844, found in Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith,
to show that Smith had always taught three personages and three Gods.
I have always declared God to be a distinct personage,
Jesus Christ a distinct personage and separate and distinct personage from
the God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and
a Spirit and these three constitute three distinct personages and three
Gods...preached by the elders for fifteen years. (given 1844, page 370)
Any person that had seen the heavens opened know
that there are three personages in the heavens... (given 1843, page 312)
All Mr. Englund has demonstrated with these statements is
that Smith forgot about the many clear references I showed in items 1,
2 and 3 above or he is a liar. That Smith is a proven liar (he lied about
his practice of polygamy) and is a false prophet has been demonstrated
in my article G-2 and G-3 on my web page.
I have to wonder why Mr.
Englund ignored my use of D&C 121:28 in item two of Evolution of
the Mormon God to show that in March 1839 Smith, by a revelation from
God, Smith should have had good reason to question the existence of the
plurality of Gods. This revelation says,
A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld,
whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. (D&C
121:28, 1839)
In item 2 above I showed that
D&C 130:22 about three personages was not given until April 1843 and
did not show up in the D&C until the 1876 edition. What was Smith's
Scriptural basis for claiming three personages and three Gods prior to
this "revelation?" He had none that I know of.
If the elders really had
been preaching about the plurality of Gods for fifteen years they then
contradicted the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Book of Moses, early D&C
verses and starting in March 1839 D&C 121:28 (Is 43:10, 44:6, 8; Alma
11:44; 2 Nephi 31:21; Moses 1:6; Testimony of the Three Witnesses, last
sentence; D&C 20:12, 17, 28).
ELOHIM AND JEHOVAH
5) On page 6, under Fourth Question, Premise "A", near
the end of item 1, Mr. Englund says, "...the term "God", will usually
be referring to the Father." Yes, and in present day Mormonism Elohim is
the Father and Jehovah is the Son. Mr. Englund knows this now, but
this was not the case in early Mormonism. Early LDS did not know what is
now clear to modern Mormons.
My friend Tom Jones said
it this way in his paper, Elohim & Jehovah.
"As I said in my paper,
from 1830 to about 1876 the Mormon Scriptures (Book of Mormon, Doctrine
and Covenants, and The Holy Bible) taught that there was only one God who
had always been God. During this period, the leadership of the Mormon Church
apparently understood that Jehovah was the name of God the Father and that
Elohim was the generic term for God (gods). Notice the usage of the
two terms in the following five quotes from early Mormon publications:
"We believe in God the Father, who is the great
Jehovah and head of all things, and that Christ is the Son of God,
co-eternal [sic] with the Father..." (E. [Erastus] Snow and B. Winchester,
Nov. 15, 1841, Times and Seasons, Vol. 3, p. 578)
"The great Eloheim Jehovah has been pleased
once more to speak from the heavens: and also to commune with man upon
the earth, by means of open visions, and by the ministration of HOLY MESSENGERS.
By this means the great and eternal High Priesthood, after the Order of
his Son, even the Apostleship, has been restored; or, returned to the earth."
(Proclamation of the Twelve, April 6, 1845, Messages of the First Presidency,
1:253, CD-Rom Disc, LDS Historical Library, second edition, Infobase)
"...let us plead the justice of our cause; trusting
in the arm of Jehovah, the Eloheim, who sits enthroned in the heavens..."
(Joseph Smith, Aug. 14, 1842, History of the Church, 5:94)
"Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
Jehovah-God-Thou Elohim, that sittest, as saith the Psalmist, 'enthroned
in heaven,' look down upon thy servant Joseph Smith..." (Joseph Smith,
Dec., 1835, Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:162; [History of the
Church 5:127, a similar idea is also found on page 94 and in D&C 109:9-47])
"But to secure his blessings the Lord requires the
strict obedience of His people. This is our duty. We obey the Lord,
Him who is called Jehovah, the Great I AM, I am a man of war, Eloheim [sic],
etc. We are under many obligations to obey him." (Brigham Young, November
17, 1867, Journal of Discourses, 12:99)
This is the end of the quotations by Tom Jones.
The issue of whom Jehovah
is and who Elohim is was not officially settled until 1916 by proclamation
(letter) from the first presidency, "The Father and The Son: A Doctrinal
Exposition by The First Presidency and The Twelve," dated June 30, 1916
(The Articles of Faith, by James E. Talmage, page 465-473, 1976 edition;
published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints). This exposition
says the pre-mortal Son is Jehovah and Elohim is God the Father.
Additional examples of
the confusion in early Mormonism is illustrated in the following LDS scriptures.
And in that day the Holy Ghost fell upon Adam, which
beareth record of the Father and the Son, saying: I am the Only Begotten
of the Father from the beginning, henceforth and forever, that as thou
hast fallen thou mayest be redeemed, and all mankind, even as many as will.
(Moses 5:9; 1830)
Note that this says the Holy Ghost is the Only Begotten.
>From the original 1830 Book of Mormon we have:
And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou
seest is the mother of God, after the manner of the flesh....And
the angel said unto me, behold the Lamb of God, yea, even the Eternal
Father!... And it came to pass that the angel spake unto me again,
saying: Look! And I looked and 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...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... (First Book of Nephi, page 25, 26
and 32 in the 1830 edition)
These four verses can be found in what is now 1 Nephi 11:18,
21, 32, 13:40 but with the words, "the Son of" added into each verse. Mr.
Englund probably will say that the addition of "the Son of" to the original
verses were corrections of printing errors. The same printing error is
not likely to have occurred in four separate verses. Jerald and Sandra
Tanner in their book, 3,813 Changes in the Book of Mormon on page
17 demonstrate that what is now 1 Nephi 11:32 did not have the phrase,
"the Son of" in the original handwritten manuscript. I submit that the
original 1830 wording was the reflection of Smith's first thinking about
God.
What is now 1 Nephi 11:18,
21, 32, 13:40 probably had the phrase "the Son of" added in the second
edition, published in 1837, but this could have happened as late as the
third edition in 1840 (Encyclopedia of Mormonism, 1:175).
It is interesting to note
that other verses in the Book of Mormon also state that the Son is the
Father and they are one God - Alma 11:38-39 (in verse 22 note that Aumulek
says "for I shall say nothing which is contrary to the Spirit of the Lord);
Ether 3:14, 4:12; Mosiah 3:5, 8, 15:1-5, 16:15; 2 Nephi 19:6, 26:12. The
Book of Mosiah says it this way:
AND now Abinadi said unto them: I would that ye
should understand that God himself shall come down among the children
of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh
he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the
will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-- The Father, because
he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh;
thus becoming the Father and Son-- And they are one God, yea, the very
Eternal Father of heaven and of earth. And thus the flesh becoming
subject to the Spirit, or the Son to the Father, being one God, suffereth
temptation, and yieldeth not to the temptation, but suffereth himself to
be mocked, and scourged, and cast out, and disowned by his people....Teach
them that redemption cometh through Christ the Lord, who is the very
Eternal Father. Amen. (Mosiah 15:1-5, 16:15)
The following early verses also have similar thoughts, D&C
11:2, 28 (1829); 29:1, 42, 46 (1830).
Nothing is said about
Christ the Lord acting for the Father, which is the position of
modern Mormonism. It says Christ the Lord is the very Eternal Father.
He is not acting for the Father, He is the Father. In other words,
Jehovah is Elohim. (This is called Modalism, a heretical teaching). This
then being the case, Elohim must be Jehovah. The early church leaders,
including Joseph Smith (quoted above near the top of this item #4) were
only stating what the Book of Mormon said very clearly.
Brigham Young's Adam-God
teachings are another example of the early strange teachings (by present
day LDS standards) by top leaders of the Mormon church. My article H-6
gives the details on this subject. My point is that Mr. Englund's attempt
to show that Smith really was teaching the standard LDS attributes of God
is not reinforced by the teachings of other top leaders and LDS scripture.
LECTURES ON FAITH NOT SCRIPTURE?
6) On page 6, under Fourth Question, Premise "B", item
1 and page 7 under Premise "C", item 1 Mr. Englund tries to dismiss the
importance of the Lectures on Faith. He says, "...which is not scripture,
and the author of the statement is unknown." and then on page 7 he says,
"...has never been considered scripture." Mr. Englund is grossly wrong
about this. My friend Tom Jones answers Mr. Englund this way.
"Question #1: Haven't
I heard that the Lectures on Faith are not scripture and never really were?
Answer: In the minutes
of the General Assembly of September 24, 1834 we find:
"...proceeded to appoint a committee to arrange the items
of doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of his church of the Latter
Day Saints (sic)..." (page 255 of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants)
Note the words, "items of doctrine." The results of this
committee is reported on in the Preface of the 1835 D&C. It has:
"We deem it to be unnecessary
to entertain you with a lengthy preface to the following volume, but merely
to say, that it contains in short, the leading items of the religion
which we have professed to believe.
The first part of
the book will be found to contain a series of Lectures as delivered before
a Theological class in this place, and in consequence of their embracing
the important doctrine of salvation, we have arranged them into the
following work.
The second part
contains items or principles for the regulation of the church, as taken
from the revelations which have been given since its organization, as well
as from former ones....We have therefore, endeavored to present, though
in a few words, our beliefs...." (Preface, 1835 D&C, page
iii and iv. This Preface is signed by Joseph Smith, and others, and is
dated February 17, 1835)
Note the words applied to
the "Lectures" (the Lectures on Faith) - "...in consequence of their
embracing the important doctrine of salvation." In other words they contained
the doctrine that the committee was charged to include by the General
Assembly of September 24, 1834.
There are two main parts
to the 1835 D&C . The first page (page 5) of the Lectures on Faith,
the title page, states that the Lectures are "on the doctrine of the church".
The second part, on the first page (page 75), is labeled the "Covenants
and Commandments". The language in the Preface, the minutes of the General
Assembly (pages 256-257 of the 1835 D&C) and these two title pages
make it clear that the Lectures on Faith were the doctrine part of the
1835 Doctrine and Covenants. They were part of the Standard Works for 86
years until they were quietly removed in 1921.
Question #2: Were
the Lectures voted on by the church?
Answer: The minutes
of the General Assembly which approved the 1835 D&C illustrate that
the whole congregation was unanimous in its approval of the Lectures
on Faith as the doctrine of the Doctrine & Covenants. (1835 D&C,
pages 255-257). The minutes of the General Assembly (pages 256-257)
show that in the afternoon of August 17, 1835 the work of the committee,
reported on in the Preface, was accepted. Leader after leader were reported
as accepting the work of the committee. On page 257 we find:
"The venerable President, Thomas Gates,
then bore record of the truth of the book, and with his five silver-headed
assistants, and the whole congregation, accepted and acknowledged it as
the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. The several
authorities, and the general assembly, by a unanimous vote, accepted of
the labors of the committee."
Question #3: In the
current D&C, doesn't it say the Lectures were omitted because they
"were not given or presented as revelations to the whole church"? (D&C,
1989 edition, third to last paragraph of the Explanatory Introduction).
Answer: Actually,
they were not given as revelations to anyone, but as doctrine taken from
the revelations. However, they were voted on by the church and
canonized as an important part of the 1835 Doctrine &
Covenants, as noted above.
As for the notion that
only revelations can be included in the D&C, the very title "Doctrine
& Covenants" implies that there are lessons or principles taught in
addition to the covenants, or revelations received. The word doctrine means
something taught or a body of principles presented for belief.
Also the fourth to last
paragraph in the Explanatory Introduction to the D&C (1989) says that,
in successive editions... "additional revelations or other matters of record
have been added, as received and accepted by competent assemblies
or conferences of the Church."
For examples of
sections which are not revelations, see section 134 which is "A declaration
of our belief regarding governments" and section 135 which is an account
of Joseph Smith's martyrdom, written by Elder John Taylor. Joseph Smith-History
1:1-10 is also historical. And the Articles of Faith at the end of the
Pearl of Great Price are clearly similar to the Lectures on Faith in that
both use revelation to show teachings of the Mormon Church. Unlike the
other non-revelatory sections, however, the knowledge contained in the
Lectures on Faith was held to be necessary for salvation. Now, why would
the doctrines taught in those lectures be omitted from scripture if they
were necessary for salvation? Why not, rather, omit all the other non-revelations
which are not necessary for salvation?
Question #4: What
about Joseph Fielding Smith's contention that "the lectures are not now
considered, and were not considered when they were placed in the Doctrine
and Covenants, on a par with the revelations"?
Answer: That may be true,
but the doctrine we are concerned with here, one of the most basic tenets
of the Christian faith, that God was God from all eternity, was
quoted directly from the revelations, which at the time were
held to be true and essentially necessary if one is
to have faith in God unto life and salvation. (Lectures,
3:2-4, 7-9,19, 1835 D&C, pages 36, 37, 39) (5)
Question #5: But
Joseph Smith didn't write or approve the Lectures on Faith, did he?
Answer: Joseph Fielding
Smith, church historian and leading scholar who became the 10th LDS President
and Prophet, said:
"...the only evidence we have as to where these
Lectures on Faith come from is from the Prophet Joseph Smith...the prophet,
in two different places, makes this statement: 'January, 1835--During the
month of January, I was engaged in the school of the elders, and in preparing
the lectures on theology for publication in the book of Doctrine and Covenants'"
(Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 2, p.304)
In addition to this information we have the statement of
Joseph Smith found in the Preface of the 1835 D&C. In this Preface
he endorsed the inclusion of the Lectures on Faith (his quote is found
above).
The net result is that
there is strong evidence that the Lectures on Faith contained the "doctrine"
of the D&C and were approved by a General Assembly of the church August
17, 1835.
This was confirmed again
at the October 1880 general conference where the following took place:
"In the October 1880 general conference, President
George Q. Cannon held up copies of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Pearl
of Great Price and said, ‘As there have been additions made...by the publishing
of revelations which were not contained in the original edition, it has
been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents to the
Conference, to see whether the Conference will vote to accept the books
and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and
as a Church.' President Joseph F. Smith so moved, it was seconded and the
congregation voted affirmatively. (Deseret Evening News, 11 Oct.
1880, p.2, col. 4.)" (as quoted in The Ensign, December
1984, page 38).
"President George Q. Cannon
said: I hold in my hand the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, and also
the book, The Pearl of Great Price, which books contain revelations of
God. In Kirtland, the Doctrine and Covenants in its original form,
as first printed, was submitted to the officers of the Church and the members
of the Church to vote upon. As there have been additions made to
it by the publishing of revelations which were not contained in the original
edition, it has been deemed wise to submit these books with their contents
to the conference, to see whether the conference will vote to accept the
books and their contents as from God, and binding upon us as a people and
as a Church.
"President Joseph
F. Smith said: I move that we receive and accept the revelations
contained in these books, as revelations from God to the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter-day Saints, and to all the world." [Deseret News, October
11, 1880, p.2.]
As the Lectures on Faith were in "these books with their
content" we have an example of them again being approved as Scripture of
the Mormon Church. They were part of the D&C for 86 years."
This ends Mr. Jones' comments on the Lectures on Faith.
I'll leave this subject by reminding you of what Joseph
Smith said in the Preface of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, "it contains
in short, the leading items of the religion which we have professed...The
first part of the book...to contain a series of Lectures...and in consequence
of their embracing the important doctrines of salvation...The second part...our
beliefs." (Preface, 1835 D&C, pages iii and iv, signed by Joseph Smith
and two others, dated February 17, 1835). Even if the Lectures on Faith
were not "scripture" (which I do not think is the case) they did represent
the teachings of the church Smith led. And they had Smith's endorsement!
SMITH'S FIRST VISION STORY
7) On page 7 under Fourth Question, Premise "C"
item 2, Mr. Englund uses the first vision story of Joseph Smith to support
the idea that Smith knew in 1820 that the Father was a personage. But being
a personage does not necessarily mean a body. Mr. Englund also uses
verses to show that man was made in God's image. He then arrives at the
conclusion, "...from 1820 until his death, Joseph Smith believed God the
Father to be a `personage`, with a body similar in form to that possessed
by man." I clearly showed in items #2 above that while Smith taught that
the Father was a personage, Smith also taught the Father was a personage
of spirit. Near the end of this item Mr. Englund then says that while
Smith might have known that the Father had a body, it was but a small change
to say it was a body of flesh and bone. Being a personage of spirit or
a body of flesh and bones is not a small change? The difference between
the two is illustrated by the present day Mormon church teaching that having
a body is a necessary step on the way toward exaltation, becoming a God.
For more on this see item 9 below.
First of all, what Smith
allegedly saw in his "First Vision" was just a vision (Joseph Smith History,
1:21, 24, 25). How could he tell that the Father had a body from a vision?
All he could tell was shape and size and size would not necessarily be
correct or be easy to gage. Smith could also not possibly know if this
appearance really represented the normal appearance of God. We know from
the Bible that God, because of His omnipresence and omnipotence, could
appear as an angel, a burning bush or any other way He wished.
What Mr. Englund didn't
address is that this first vision story is just that, a story. There is
good evidence that it is a fabricated story, a flawed story. In summary
it is fiction. It did not reach its final form until 1838, 18 years after
the alleged event and was not published in an official publication until
1842, which dates it within the time frame of Smith's major change in God's
attributes. For example, Smith's 1832 version reported seeing only one
personage. His 1835 version reported two (as does the Fifth Lecture on
Faith in the 1835 D&C). Older versions by top leaders say Smith was
visited by an angel. More about the various versions of Smith's vision
can be found on my web page, article #D-5.
MADE IN GOD'S IMAGE?
With regards to man being
made in God's image, as in Genesis 1:26, Mr. Englund, as other LDS have
voiced, based on Gen 1:26, and others, that because man has a body then
God must also have a body.
As you consider the material
below keep in mind that an "image" can have many meanings. A reflection
of a person in a mirror is an "image," but in a flat plane. The same can
be said about a photograph. A statue is an image. And all of these images
can be at reduced or enlarged size of the real thing.
Gen 1:26 says, "Let us
make man in our image, after our likeness..." Who are the "us" and "our"?
I believe they are the Father and Son. I believe that at this stage the
Son did not have a body, he was spirit. This idea is also consistent with
LDS teachings (Ether 3:8-16). Then how could "Let us make man in our image,
after our likeness..." apply? Our body then, according to LDS teachings,
is not in the image of the Son at the time of the creation. I also believe
that the Father is Spirit, as demonstrated above in item 3 and just below.
From Gen 1:27 we learn "...created
man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female..."
This should also generate a problem for LDS. Does this mean, because we
are created in God's image, that God not only has a male shape with all
the parts of a male, but also a female shape with all of the female parts
(smaller stature, wide hips, developed breast, uterus etc.)? This is silly!
Some point to Gen 5:3
about Adam's son, Seth, being in his likeness and image therefore this
means "likeness, after his image" also applies to 1:26. All this verse
is saying is that Seth was like Adam in a similar way we are like the Father
and Son. But it says nothing about what the likeness and image are in each
case. Keep in mind that at this point Adam was in his fallen state, already
kicked out of the Garden. This complicates the comparison to 1:26. In the
Garden Adam must have been a perfect man. Was Adam's likeness and image
the same after he left the Garden even though he was now a sinner? Did
he continue to have the likeness and image of the Father and Son?
What is clear is that the Father
is spirit, as shown in the following verses. Note that some of them are
old LDS Scriptures, before 1836, before Smith changed his teachings:
+ Jer 23:24 do not I fill heaven and earth saith the Lord.
+ John 1:18 no man has seen God at any time.
+ John 4:24 God is spirit.
+ Lk 24:39 spirit hath not flesh and bones.
+ Col 1:15 who is the image of the invisible God.
+ 1Tim 1:17, 6:15-16 Lord of lords, whom no man hath
seen nor can see, invisible.
+ Heb 11:27 invisible.
+ Alma 18:26-29, 19:25-27, 22:9-11, 31:15 great spirit
who is God.
+ Mosiah 15:5 flesh (the Son) becoming subject to the
spirit (the Father).
+ D&C 93:23 Father; that which is spirit.
+ 1835 D&C: Lecture Fifth of Faith, pages 52,53,55,
the Father being a personage of Spirit, glory and power; two personages
(not three as in D&C 130:22).
Seeing the clear statements that God is spirit then "in
our image, after our likeness" cannot mean God has a physical body because
we do.
I think Gen. 1:26 is saying
that we have some of the moral and other attributes of God. 1 Corinthians
15:49, Philippians 2:6-8 and Ephesians 4:22-24 gives us a hint that the
body we have now is not in the "image" of God's form.
And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly. (1 Corinthians 15:49)
Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took
upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient
unto death, even the death of the cross. (Philippians 2:6-8)
"You were taught to put away your former way of
life, your old self, corrupt and deluded by its lusts, and to renewed in
the spirit of your minds, and to clothe yourselves with the new self, created
according to the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."
(Eph 4:22-24, NRSV)
In these verses note how we will in the future bear
the "image of the heavenly" and how Jesus Christ was in the form of God,
but took on the form of a servant, the likeness of men, in fashion as a
man. If the Father has a body of flesh and bones why didn't it say "in
fashion as the Father?" Also note the, "clothe yourselves with the new
self, created according to the likeness of God."
But what is the real image
of God, likeness of God? Rev 1:11-18 and Dan 7:9 gives us a description
of our Lord's appearance after his ascension. These verses seem to describe
a different appearance than what I would expect a man of our Lord's age
(33) to have. I suggest a comparison of John 20:24-27 (appearance to Thomas),
Luke 24:37-40 (appearance to 11 in Jerusalem), 1 Cor 15:42-44 (Paul's teachings
about a resurrected body) with the verses in Rev and Dan. After his
resurrection, but before his ascension, did our Lord have white hair? We
know from John 20:24-27 that Jesus seemed to come from the grave with the
same body he went into it with (all the wounds). At the age of his resurrection
it is not likely His hair was white as described in Dan 7:9 and Rev 1:11-18.
So what is the image of God?
WHY TWO ARTICLES?
8) On page 9, near the end of his article, in his summary,
Mr. Englund questions why I have two articles on similar subjects. The
two articles were written at different times (the dates are shown on each
article) to meet different needs. One (past-present) was written May 19,
1996 and the other (evolution) January 30, 1997. As I mentioned at the
very end of this last article, it was a summary of a 20 page booklet that
has considerably more details. What follows is some of what was left out
of the shortened article, with some added information.
Is God Omnipotent, Omniscient And Omnipresent?
....
His omnipresence:
The Book of Mormon does not have a clear statement
about the omnipresence of God. But two early Doctrine and Covenants references,
6:32 (April 17, 1829) and 61:36 (August 12, 1831) also indicate the omnipresence
of the Lord in person, without using the word.
And now, verily I say unto you, and what I say
unto one I say unto all, be of good cheer, little children; for I am
in your midst, and I have not forsaken you; (D&C 61:36, August
1831)
Verily, verily, I say unto you, as I said unto my
disciples, where two or three are gathered together in my name, as touching
one thing, behold, there will I be in the midst of them--even so am
I in the midst of you. (D&C 6:32, April 1829 )
LDS would probably say that Jesus Christ, the alleged author
of the revelations, would not be personally present in all cases. I remind
them of what Smith said, "the scriptures say what they mean, and mean
what they say." Now what will happen if there are many groups meeting
at the same time that need the presence of the Lord? Note that these say,
"for I am in your midst," "there will I be in the midst of them" and "even
so am I in the midst of you." They do not say anything about my spirit
alone will be there. It can happen because God is omnipresent, He can be
in many places at the same time. Probably Mr. Englund will say that this
really means not Christ in person, but that fourth part of the Mormon Godhead,
the Spirit of The Lord (Mormon Doctrine, page 752). But the verses
say nothing about this. And Joseph Smith in 1842 and 1835 had this
to say:
There are many souls whom I have loved stronger
than death. To them I have proved faithful--to them I am determined to
prove faithful, until God calls me to resign up my breath. O Thou, who
seest and knowest the hearts of all men--Thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient,
and omnipresent Jehovah--God--Thou Elohim, that sittest, as saith the
Psalmist, `enthroned in heaven,' look down upon thy servant Joseph Smith
at this time... (Comprehensive History of the Church, 2:162,
probably August 1842)
We here observe that God is the only supreme
governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell;
who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient; without beginning of
days or end of life...
Q. How do you prove that God has faith in himself
independently? A. Because he is omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient;
without beginning of days or end of life, and in him all fullness dwells.
(1835 D&C, Lectures on Faith, Lecture 2:2, p. 12, Q&A p. 26, first
edition; this was in the D&C until it was left out of the 1921
edition.) (6)
Some may say that Joseph Smith really had in mind that "omnipresent"
did not mean God everywhere present in person. But Noah Webster's 1828
edition of the dictionary under "omnipresent" has: "Present in all
places at the same time...as the omnipresent Jehovah." If Joseph Smith
thought that "omnipresent" had a different meaning, or it was achieved
by other than the actual person of God, then why did he keep it secret
and not say so in the above references, or the other Lectures on Faith
in this series?
THE MORMON CHURCH:
The present day Mormon Church in one of its teaching manuals says the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost are NOT omnipresent in person.
...and yet they [Father, Son, Holy Ghost] are three
separate and distinct entities. Each occupies space and is and
can be in but one place at one time...The Holy Ghost as a personage of
Spirit can no more be omnipresent in person than can the Father or the
Son... (7) (Doctrines Of The Gospel, Student Manual,
Religion 231 and 232, Copyright 1986 by Corporation of the President of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, pages 8 and 11) (8)
THE BIBLE teaches the
omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence of God, but in different words
in some cases:
His omnipotence: Revelation 19:6; Luke 1:37.
His omniscience: Acts 1:24; Matthew 6:8; Job 28:24, 34:21.
His omnipresence: Jeremiah 23:24; Matthew 18:20; Ps.
139:7-10.
This is the end of quotes from my booklet, Evolution
Of The Mormon God - from spirit to flesh...from one God to many Gods.
PRECEPT UPON PRECEPT
9) On page 9, in his Summary, Mr. Englund uses Isaiah
28:10, 13, the idea of "line upon line, precept upon precept," to support
the idea of why an evolution of ideas about God are biblical and necessary.
Mr. Englund has missed the context of these verses. They are speaking in
a taunting way to the drunkards of Ephraim, they that have erred through
wine and strong drink (verse 1, 3 and 7). It is they that need line upon
line and precept on precept. Does Mr. Englund think we all need to be treated
as drunks? In addition Mr. Englund left out the end of verse 13 telling
us why "verse on verse" was needed - "...that they might go, and fall backward,
and be broken, and snared, and taken."
What Mr. Englund forgot
about was the very clear statement by Joseph Smith that certain things
were needed to have salvation from God, to know God. Smith said,
...It is the first principle of the Gospel to know
for a certainty the Character of God,..(Search These Commandments,
page 152, 1984, and Journal of Discourses 6:3. Joseph said
this at the April 6, 1844 Mormon Church general conference in Nauvoo, IL)
2. Let us here observe, that three things are
necessary, in order that any rational and intelligent being may exercise
faith in God unto life and salvation.
3. First, The idea that he actually exists.
4. Secondly, A correct idea of his character,
perfections and attributes. An acquaintance with these attributes in
the divine character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith
of any rational being can center in him for life and salvation. (Lecture
Third of Faith, 1835 Doctrine & Covenants, page 36)
An acquaintance with these attributes in the divine
character, is essentially necessary, in order that the faith of any rational
being can center in him for life and salvation. (Lecture Third of Faith
in the 1835 D&C, pages 40, verses 19-21)
These ideas do not leave any room for an evolution of the
information about the major attributes, perfections and character of God.
Smith said they were a necessary part of knowing God and "exercise faith
in God unto life and salvation." If major attributes of God were not known,
according to Smith, a person would not have "life and salvation."
PASSING OUT MISLEADING MATERIAL?
10) One last correction is needed. On page 10 Mr. Englund
said I was "...passing out misleading material at Hill Cumorah Pageant..."
Yes, I was passing out literature at the Hill Cumorah Pageant, near Palmyra,
NY (July 10-18), but also at the City of Joseph Pageant in Nauvoo, IL (July
31 - August 1-7). As for our material being misleading, has Mr. Englund
read any of it? Mr. Englund, please, tell me specifically what we were
handing out by title and identify the misleading parts. I suspect you do
not have any of the material. Mr. Englund - none of it was misleading and
the sources we used were well referenced.
SUMMARY
Mr. Englund has time and
again refused to use his prophet's admonition that "the scriptures say
what they mean, and mean what they say." (Teachings of the Prophet
Joseph Smith, page 264, 1842). He has used his modern day understanding
of the teachings of his church and inserted them into the meaning of the
older teachings as found in the original 1830 Book of Mormon and early
Doctrine and Covenants. Mr. Englund built his house of straw.
To show that my thoughts
about the evolution of the Mormon God are not unusual and unique I suggest
the following reading.
SUGGESTED READING:
1. The following articles in Line Upon Line,
Essays On Mormon Doctrine, edited by Gary James Bergera, Signature
Books, Salt Lake City, 1989. This book is still in print.
- "Defining the Contemporary Mormon Concept of God",
by Van Hale, page 7
- "The Earliest Mormon Concept of God", by Dan Vogel,
page 17
- "The Development of the Mormon Doctrine of God", by
Boyd Kirkland, page 35
- "Omnipotence, Omnipresence and Omniscience in Mormon
Theology", by Kent E. Robson, page 67.
These articles say what
I am saying and in more detail.
2. The following articles in Mormonism - Shadow or
Reality, by Jerald and Sandra Tanner, 1987 fifth edition.
- "The First Vision", page 143;
- "The Godhead", page 163
- "The Adam God Doctrine", page 173
- "Changes In The Book of Mormon", page 89
3. More about Smith's reliability as a prophet can be
found in article G-2 and 3 on my web page.
END NOTES
1. The Lectures On Faith were in the D&C
from 1835 to 1921, when they were quietly removed from the 1921 and following
editions.
2. Probably Joseph Smith - there is more
on this in item #6 in the main text.
3. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said,
in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither
more nor less." (Through The Looking-Glass, by Lewis Carroll,
chapter 6, page 124.)
4. Note in Alma 31:15-38 that those
who say God is a spirit are not corrected in the prayer of the prophet
involved even though other errors are. In none of the references are any
of the speakers corrected for calling God a "spirit" or the "Great Spirit"
even though they correct other errors. In Alma 18:26-29, 34, 22:8-11 alleged
prophets of God call God the "Great Spirit." Mr. Englund has rejected this
idea, but the verses say otherwise.
5. Also to be considered - according to the Preface
of the 1835 D&C, and the title page of the Lectures, they were the
"doctrine" part of the Doctrine and Covenants. Note the "...in consequence
of their embracing the important doctrine of salvation."
6. Note how this says the "only supreme governor
and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell." In other
words, there is only one God, the only God.
7. This contradicts the "Lecture Second of
Faith," in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants, page 12, verse
2, shown above.
8. The quote is from Gospel Doctrine,
by Joseph F. Smith, page 61.
John Farkas
Berean Christian Ministries
P.O. Box 1091
Webster, NY 14580
E-mail: bcmmin@frontiernet.net
Web pages:
Mormonism: http://www.bcmmin.org
Jehovah's Witnesses: http://www.bcmmin.org/jwstd.htm
let/englund2
10-19-98