They came by on Tuesday evening, July 14th—only this time it was not two youngsters. As we discovered later, the older one was married with two children. He lives in the area; the younger one is a missionary from Utah. The younger began the conversation, but the older man soon became the spokesman.
They began by asking if I had read the Book of Mormon. I answered that I had written a 50-page review of it for the Spring lectures back in 2001 (392-439). They asked what I thought of it. “Do you want an honest answer?” They did. “”It was tedious at times and quoted from the King James a lot.” The speaker asked if I would want to read it again. “Once was enough.” He then affirmed, “I love to read the Book of Mormon. I plan to read it several more times.”
The Completed Revelation
When he got around to affirming that it was “another testament of Jesus Christ,” I politely disagreed, explaining that in the New Testament Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide the apostles into all truth (John 16:12-13). Peter said that God had given us all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3), and Jude said that brethren should contend for “the faith” which was once for all given to the saints (Jude 3). “If you have been given all, then there is nothing left. If you have a thousand dollars in a savings account at the bank, and you draw it ALL out, you can go back and ask for more, but you won’t get it because it is ALL gone.” They did not know how to respond.
Of course, Joseph Smith anticipated objections to the Book of Mormon. There is a section in which he writes: “Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible” (2 Nephi 29:6). The fundamental difference between Mormons and us is that they believe there is more Bible, and we do not. Their “proof” for it must be carefully considered.
Subjective Religion
The lead conversationalist said that he had posted an article on a website and received a great deal of hostile response from readers. I asked from whom? He said that most of it came from former LDS members. Really? That sounded interesting. “Yes,” he continued, “They keep saying that if you trust in your own heart, you’re a fool.” I told him, “They are referring to Proverbs 28:26, which warns against trusting your feelings.” He insisted that God had revealed to him that Joseph Smith was a prophet and that the Book of Mormon is true.
Such is hardly surprising. When a child is taught from his youth to believe those two things, and then he prays to God as to whether or not those are facts, what kind of outcome would anyone expect? Naturally, he imagines that God has confirmed what he has learned from his parents and their church.
“But that evidence is subjective. Even if God told you that, how does that help me?” I picked up a book off the coffee table, written by Bill Wiese, with the short title, Hell. “His original book was called 23 Minutes in Hell, and this one is the sequel. He claims that God showed him what hell is like. He was able to observe and sense all that occurs there—the torment and agony of the people. He claims that God revealed these things to him—just as you say God told you the Book of Mormon is genuine. If we had some Pentecostals with us, they would all have occasions to share with us in which God spoke to them, also. Now how is anyone going to discern between all these messages?”
No one ever comes up with a very good answer to that one. Sometimes, a person will say, “If the message is in harmony with the Scriptures, then it is from God.” But Mormons cannot say that because they have teachings that conflict with the Bible.
Celestial Marriage
The leader brought up one of those subjects to explain why we need additional revelation. Mormons believe in earthly marriage, but you can also marry someone for time and eternity. “Wouldn’t it be great to know that you can be with your wife forever?” he asked. “Yes, it’s a nice thought, but Jesus said that in heaven there is no marriage.” “Sure, He said that, but He was just answering the Sadducees, who didn’t believe in the resurrection.”
He moved quickly to another statement, but one should not gloss over this text. It is true that Sadducees did not believe in angels or in the resurrection, and Jesus did prove from the Scriptures that the spirit does not die with the body by quoting God as saying, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob” (Ex. 3:6). In order to trap Jesus, they had asked: Whose wife would the widow be in the resurrection, since all seven brothers had married her? Mormons would answer today, “Why, she would be a wife to the one she married for time and eternity.” Jesus, however, said: “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven” (Matt. 23:30).
That last sentence is undoubtedly for those who might argue, “Okay, you can’t get married in heaven, but if on earth, you marry for time and eternity, then you enter into heaven already married.” Nice try, but it remains the case that angels are not married, period, and neither shall we be. What would be the purpose? Marriage on earth is to satisfy sexual needs and to procreate. Spiritual, resurrected bodies do not have sexual needs, and procreation had no purpose in heaven. Of course, two people who were married for a number of years may be allowed to be with each other. Mormons, however, have a more fleshly view of eternity, but the conversation did not drift in that direction.
The All-Sufficiency of the Scriptures
In light of the claim that the Bible does not contain all revelation, I returned to the point about its sufficiency. “The Bible is equipped to deal with everything in life that we need. There is no false doctrine that it does not defend against.”
“Oh, but the Bible says that we don’t have everything that Jesus taught—that if it were all written down, even the world itself could not contain it all.”
“Many people think that the text says that, but let’s turn to John 21:25 and read the text.” Of course, it makes the claim that if everything Jesus did were recorded, the world would probably not be able to contain it all (which is a hyperbole). After showing them this text, I reiterated that the Bible is sufficient—that no false doctrine or moral issue has been raised that the Bible does not deal with. They did not have an answer for that statement, nor could they think of a single issue that the Bible does not deal with.
Contradiction
A portion of the discussion centered on contradiction. I asked the men how it was that in the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith emphatically taught monogamy but said that polygamy was acceptable in Doctrines and Covenants. Their initial response was that sometimes conditions change and that God has more to say. They suggested that God can change His mind on any particular subject at any given time.
We granted that in times past God had allowed some things that are no longer acceptable to Him. For example, in the Patriarchal Age, God allowed Jacob to marry Leah and Rachel and have their handmaids as wives, also. Under the Law, however, Moses specifically prohibited a man from marrying two sisters (Lev. 18:18). God allowed polygamy and divorce under the Old Law, but in the New Testament Jesus restored the original pattern that God established in Genesis—one man and one woman for life—with the proviso that divorce be allowed only for unfaithfulness.
This admission, however, does not mean that God flip-flopped all over the place. The new covenant reflects the highest level of morality. It is unthinkable that God, under the Christian system, would authorize men to go back under the inferior system of polygamy. Yet that is what Joseph Smith authorized in his Doctrines and Covenants (in order to satisfy his own lusts). Furthermore, nothing in the New Testament anticipates a new covenant. Under the Law are prophecies of a new covenant (Jer. 31:31-34) and a new Lawgiver (Deut. 18:18-19). The New Testament predicts no new covenant but rather teaches that it is complete.
What is the purpose of a new “covenant”? As it has often been pointed out: 1) If it says less than the New Testament, it says too little and has omitted part of the whole counsel of God; 2) If it says more than the New Testament, it says too much and assumes as true what God did not put in it (the doctrine of marriage for time and eternity, for example); 3) if a new testament teaches the same as the original, then it is unnecessary.
Sooner or later a “new revelation” will contradict what the Bible teaches, or there is no purpose for having it. Those who are content with what God has revealed do not try to add new material to it. One of two things is usually the case. The first is that some want their own disciples (Acts 20:28-32). The way to have one’s own personal following is to have a new, slightly different (and better, no doubt) message.
The second reason for a different covenant is so that a person may do the thing he desires to do, whatever it might be. It may be a means of obtaining wealth. It may be a means of satisfying sexual desires. Inevitably, it results in the glorification of someone other than the Lord. When a conflict arises between the Bible and a cult leader, the charismatic person who has the ability to con people wins easily. How sad that people choose a personality over the truth!
Why differences?
The leader of the two men asked why there was so much division in the religious world. “Isn’t it because of different interpretations?” he suggested. It slowed him down a little when I answered, “Not always. Sometimes the reason is that people do not want to hear the truth; sometimes it interferes with their morality, or it just might be that they were taught error by someone they trusted.”
“That’s true,” he acknowledged, “but often it is interpretation. Wouldn’t is be nice to have someone to resolve those difficulties?” He was heading toward the need of latter-day revelation and perhaps the need for apostles as well. “We do have a way of knowing the truth; the Scriptures provide all the information we need.” When he brought up something about miracles, I mentioned that those had been done away with.
He looked shocked, probably because so many religious groups teach error on the subject. “When were they done away?” I tried to explain briefly, “The miracles were for a purpose, to show that what Jesus taught was the truth—especially concerning the fact that he is Divine, the Son of God.” He did not disagree with that, but then asked, “What about the apostles?” Continuing, I mentioned how that the people needed a reason to believe the apostles, also. But when the New Testament was completely revealed, then the means by which God revealed it (through the various spiritual gifts) was no longer needed. Miracles to confirm it were no longer needed (Mark 16:20).
“But didn’t the church need the Holy Spirit to tell them what books were inspired? Didn’t some council make the determination as to what books belonged in the Bible and what ones did not?” “Yes, a council did meet, but they only recognized what men had already determined. There were marks of authenticity that brethren went by as the letters were circulated.” He interjected: “So they had a checklist?”
“I don’t know that they had a checklist. But most of the documents had been around a long time and been accepted by the church from the very beginning as being inspired of God. For a few books, it may have had something to do with their harmony with the others. Obviously, if a purported work were not written until the second century, it was too new to be considered. If it contained contradictions or foolishness, it was also dismissed.”
“But don’t you need apostles or the Holy Spirit to make those decisions?” I asked him: “Do you believe in the Biblical doctrine of Providence?” He was quick to answer that he did. “Then, don’t you think God could have made certain that all of the inspired books were included and that those that were not His were left out?” He had to admit that it was possible. People today are often too quick to conclude that the only way God can do something is directly; the fact is that He is not restricted by the instantaneous and the immediate.
Evidence
The discussion returned to the subject of proof for the message being taught. ”How do I know who to believe?” I asked again. “Do I believe your confirmation that Joseph Smith is a prophet? Or do I believe this man who claims to have been in hell? Or do I believe the Pentecostals—even though they cannot agree amongst themselves? The Trinitarian Pentecostals believe that there are three in the Godhead (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but the Oneness Pentecostals only believe that there is one in the Godhead—namely Jesus. They both claim to do miracles, and they cannot even agree with each other! All of these have a basis in subjectivism, rather than the objective Word of God.”
They did not have an answer for that question, except to reassure me that they were right. I should have asked them, “What do you say to all of these others who claim to have the Holy Spirit guiding them when they say God told them the Book of Mormon was not genuine?” Instead, I told them about the Mormon foreman I used to work for. He did not like to be called a Mormon because he was from the Re-Organized Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints, which was based in Independence, Missouri. They were not thrilled about this “renegade” group, saying that they did not even believe in the Book of Mormon any more. They missed the point about having miracles, and in this case, even apostles, and still not being united.
They probably decided they were not getting anywhere with me; so they arose to leave. The leader said: “I was rebellious until about seven years ago when I asked God if Joseph Smith was His prophet. My life has definitely changed for the better. There’s great satisfaction in knowing you are going the right way.” This last attempt at a testimonial did not have the desired effect. I responded with a smile and repeated, “When you are going the right way” (with the emphasis on right).
He had said the part about Joseph Smith with such intensity that I later thought, “What a shame!” His faith is bound up in a subjective experience rather than in the Word of God. And what would happen to him if someone convinced him that Joseph Smith was a fraud? Would his faith be destroyed? Would he revert to the rebellious state he said that he was in? In all likelihood, he would remain with his Mormon beliefs despite the evidence because his faith is tied up in it. But Jesus never said, “Unless you believe in Joseph Smith, you shall die in your sins” (John 8:24).
How does such a mortal scoundrel command such loyalty more than 160 years after his death? Alexander Campbell, who was alive when The Book of Mormon was first published in 1830 and also knew Smith’s background, wrote of him and the Book of Mormon:
Smith, its real author, as ignorant and impudent a knave as ever wrote a book, betrays the cloven foot in basing his whole book upon a false fact, or a pretended fact, which makes God a liar (392).