A response to Breaking Down Barriers Between Latter-day Saints and Mainline Christians by Tom Jones

Kevin C. Hill
(c) Copyright Kevin C. Hill, 1999. All rights reserved. Presented by the Mormon Fortress (www.mormonfortress.com)

Some critics of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have claimed that Joseph Smith changed his doctrine regarding the nature of The Godhead. They claim that in the early period of The LDS Church the teachings on The Godhead are more Trinitarian in nature and follow a classical theistic approach. Indeed, they claim that the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants and other non-canonical sources teach a concept of God similar to that found in the Protestant world and that up until approximately 1838 the LDS Church taught this concept of God. One individual, Tom Jones has written a paper repeating these claims. The position he takes is not new. (1)

The purpose of this paper is to illustrate that the claim that Joseph changed his view of God is incorrect. I will demonstrate that his early understanding about the nature of God was no where near the classical theism preached in the Christian world of his day. I will also demonstrate that the knowledge of God revealed to the prophet Joseph Smith by the time of his death in 1844 was a progressive revelation about God’s nature rather then an about face claimed by the critics. To accomplish this I will respond to the paper by Tom Jones Breaking Down Barriers Between Latter-day Saints and Mainline Christians. In his paper Mr. Jones relies heavily on The Lectures on Faith, particularly The Fifth Lecture, to illustrate his points. He attempts to argue that the lectures were scripture and authored by Joseph Smith. While the Lectures have much value and worth in their teachings and doctrines they present as part of this paper I will show that:

1. The Lectures were not considered scripture and were not on par with the revelations contained in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

2. The question of authorship of The Lectures is far from certain and in fact studies demonstrate that Sidney Rigdon was the primary writer of the Lectures.

3. Regardless of the outcome of items 1 and 2 above The Lectures do not teach what Mr. Jones insists they do, that Joseph Smith taught the God of classical theism in early LDS history.

The approach taken will be to respond point by point to Mr. Jones’ paper. Not only will I address the issues Mr. Jones raises about the Lectures on Faith but also I will respond to other issues Mr. Jones raises in his paper. Because I provide Mr. Jones’ entire paper in the body of the text of this paper I will not footnote it.

So let’s not say, “what’s the use, you’ve got your beliefs and I’ve got

mine, so let’s just agree to disagree”. Let’s contend for the faith, gently

First a general observation I would like to make is regarding Mr. Jones use of the Joseph Smith translation when citing biblical passages. I am sure he is aware that the JST is not the official scriptural version of the Old and New Testaments used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In fact there is much evidence that Joseph Smith never considered his work of the translation of the Bible as complete. (2) I can only suppose that Mr. Jones thinks that if a JST passage contradicts the position of the LDS Church on the nature of God was not changed in the JST, it demonstrates that Joseph believed something that he later changed his thoughts on. There are two problems with this. First as already stated the JST was never completed. Second, the Biblical citations that Mr. Jones uses in his attempt to demonstrate that Joseph believed one thing and then changed to another are verses that Joseph believed in 1830 and in 1844. Latter-day Saint Christians believe those same passages today. However, The interpretation of those scriptures by Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saint Christians today may vary from the classical theistic straight jacket that Mr. Jones places upon their interpretations and attempts to place on Joseph Smith, early Latter-day Saints and Latter-day Saints today. Please do not misunderstand my position. I believe the JST provides much revealed doctrine and valuable insights. But I believe that Mr. Jones use of JST in his paper serves no useful purpose to the issues addressed.

One way to approach this is to take a look at a time when LDS and traditional

This initial opening seems to me to be a straw man. The reader is now led into a false premise right from the beginning and is told up front that Latter-day Saint theology agreed with the Protestant view of God when the facts demonstrate differently. Based on this premise, Mr. Jones will select items from LDS writings and scripture he feels back up his points. However, based on my findings it seems that he will missed much evidence to the contrary. He will also apply his evangelical understanding upon the LDS scripture and teachings he relies on. So, my first question to Mr. Jones is who says we agreed?

Additionally Mr. Jones does not provide any documented teachings of his side of the equation at all in his paper. Absent from his paper are the concepts of the orthodox creeds that attempt to interpret the Biblical passages that teach about God in a way that we believe are outside of the true meaning of such passages. Absent from his paper is anything about the hundreds of years it took traditional Christianity to formulate and conform their Christological differences if in fact they yet have. What he begins with is his interpretations of his selective sources of LDS teachings regarding the subject with no background of what classical theism is all about. It seems that a summary of classical theism and what exactly it is that Mr. Jones thinks we agreed about would have been in order.

Did we really agree with classical theism in early LDS teaching? No we did not, at least not like Mr. Jones asserts at the very outset of his paper. The evidence demonstrating this will be illustrated as we progress.

attributes.”(You’ll find a photocopy of this page on page 4 of Appendix A,

hereafter referred to as A-4). The lesson then proceeds to examine the attributes of God as given by

attributes was that God has always been God: “even from everlasting to everlasting, you are God” (1835 D&C, p. 37; A-4) “he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting” (1835 D&C, p. 39; A-4)“seeing that these are attributes of the Deity, they are unchangeable -being the same yesterday, today, and forever... for God never changes, therefore His attributes and character remain forever the same.” (1835 D&C, p. 51; A-5)These are foundational truths which the 1835 D&C, the Bible, Latter-day Saints and orthodox Christians held in common in 1835.

There are many items to address here. First is the use of the citation 1835 D&C. Mr. Jones believes the Lectures on Faith were scripture. He attempts to bolster his position that the Lectures on Faith were scripture by using the title of an LDS book of scripture that no longer contains The Lectures on Faith. His reference to them as the 1835 D&C confuses the modern day reader by referring to the portion of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants that contained the Lectures as “the D&C” rather than to carve out the Lectures and refer to them as a separate document, which they were. That the lectures were bound into the 1835 D&C I do not dispute. But were the Lectures on faith considered on par with the revelations contained in the 1835 D&C? Were they scripture? The answer is no. This point is illustrated by Wade Englund in his paper The Wolf Huffs and Puffs But Does He Blow My House Down? Wade Englund is responding to an associate of Mr. Jones. In this section of his paper Wade is answering an accusation that Wade dismisses the importance of The Lectures on Faith:

“It's not that I was trying to dismiss the importance of the Lectures on Faith; but rather, I was trying to get Mr. Farkas to accurately cite the source of his quote (Lectures on Faith, not the D&C), and not mislead the reader into thinking that the Lectures are scripture, which they are not--though, admittedly, they were, for a time, bound together with scripture in the D&C. The reason he wishes to make this an issue, and why he cannot just be satisfied with correctly stating that the quote comes from the Lectures on Faith, is because his argument rests upon one lone piece of obscure or esoteric evidence. And, since he eventually posits that lonely piece of evidence against D&C 130:22 (which the LDS believe is scripture), it would seem rather pale in comparison. Hence, the flurry of dubious augmentation, and misleading labeling.

As a preface for what is about to be discussed, there should be pointed out that various revelations were first compiled and published in 1833 as the "Book of Commandments". The Lectures on Faith (or at least the 1st, 5th and 6th Lectures) were first published in May and June of 1835 in the Church's monthly paper in Kirkland called "Messenger and Advocate". The Book of Commandments, and all seven Lectures of Faith were not combined to form the "Doctrines and Covenants" until September of 1835. After they were combined, they were still left segregated into separate parts (Part First called "Theology: Lectures on the Doctrines of the Church of the Latter Day Saints of Faith", and Part Second called "Covenants and Commandments of the Lord to His Servants of the Church of the Latter Day Saints"). Subsequent to that publication, the Lectures were also published separately in the "Millennial Star" in England from 1840 to 1843, and in the "Messenger and Advocate" in Pennsylvania from 1835 to 1836. The Lectures and the Book of Commandments were later separated in 1921, with the Lectures of Faith being designated as the "Lectures on Faith", and the Book of Commandments retaining the title of "Doctrines and Covenants".(Lectures on Faith, Dahl—Authorship and History, Pp. 14-16).

I find this significant to the discussion at hand in two ways. First, the lectures were never co-mingled (though they were co-published) with the revelations, thus demonstrating that they were never considered by the Church to be on par, or of the same authoritative and canonized nature. Second, because they have always been handled as discrete entities, and particularly because they began being published

separately, and have been published separately for over 67 years; and given the respective titles that they have been published under for the last 67 years; I believe it is misleading to cite as the source of a Lectures on Faith quote by saying, "in the Doctrines and Covenants.”(3)

Next, as for the language from The Third Lecture regarding the importance of a knowledge of God’s character, perfections and attributes I whole-heartedly agree. Indeed we read in John 17:3:

“And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.”

An understanding and knowledge of God, about God and his nature are essential components required to exercise faith unto salvation. Latter-day Saint Christians would not dispute this. With that thought firmly entrenched in our minds we can examine the quotes above that Mr. Jones uses from The Lectures on Faith. The three quotes Mr. Jones says are from the Doctrine and Covenants are from The Lectures on Faith: Lecture Third and Lecture Fourth. While Mr. Jones does attach to his paper an appendix that includes excerpts of the sections of text from which he takes his quotes, he selectively uses a few items in the body of his paper that reinforce his point. Also in his text attachments he has a tendency to underline the sections he has already quoted. This draws the reader’s attention to the section Mr. Jones would like them to remember and reinforce. He also has what I find an annoying tendency to put notes in the column of the attachments that repeat what he has already said in his text and dramatize his point further. Many of these notes are again from Mr. Jones interpretations of passages or sections that Latter-day Saint Christians did and currently understand differently than Mr. Jones does.

An examination of the full text of the Third and Fourth Lectures shows that the major focus is on the eternal and unchanging nature of God’s attributes and character. Very little is really said about God always being God. In the early parts of Lecture Third we read:

6. Having previously been made acquainted with the way the idea of his existence came into the world, as well as the fact of his existence, we shall proceed to examine his character, perfections, and attributes, in order that this class may see, not only the just grounds which they have for the exercise of faith in him for life and salvation, but the reasons that all the world, also, as far as the idea of his existence extends, may have to exercise faith in him, the Father of all living.

And how are we to know of these things that the Third Lecture is to examine? Lecture Third goes on to tell us it is by the revelations which God has given to us. This would encompass both ancient and modern day revelations. The key to understanding what is up and coming, or what it is that we are going to examine, specifically is found in the following passage from Lecture Third:

8. Having said so much we proceed to examine the character, which the revelations have given of God.

It is His Character and the way he approaches mankind that we will now focus on. His Character is what The Third Lecture of Faith is all about. His consistent behavior is emphasized as well. Let us compare side by side the selective passages Mr. Jones uses to set us up for his up for what he thinks is the grand change. Let us also keep in mind the third premise of this paper found in my introduction; that The Lectures on Faith do not really say what Mr. Jones thinks they do.

JONES QUOTE		ORIGINAL QUOTATION

*even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."* *he is God over all, from everlasting to everlasting* *seeing that these are attributes of the Deity, they are unchangeable—being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever—* *for God never changes, therefore his attributes and character remain forever the same*		9. Moses gives us the following account in Exodus 34:6: "And the Lord passed by before him, and proclaimed, The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in goodness and truth." Psalms 103:6-8: "The Lord executeth righteousness and judgment for all that are oppressed. He made known his ways unto Moses, his acts unto the children of Israel. The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and plenteous in mercy." Psalms 103:17-18: "But the mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as keep his covenant, and to those that remember his commandments to do them." Psalm 90:2: "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, *even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."* Hebrews 1:10-12: "And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: they shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; and as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail." James 1:17: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning." Malachi 3:6: "For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed." 10. Book of Commandments, chapter 2, commencing in the third line of the first paragraph: fn "For God doth not walk in crooked paths; neither doth he turn to the right hand nor the left; neither doth he vary from that which he hath said: Therefore his paths are strait, and his course is one eternal round." Book of Commandments, chapter 37, verse 1: fn "Listen to the voice of the Lord your God, even Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, whose course is one eternal round, the same today as yesterday and forever." 11. Numbers 23:19: "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent." 1 John 4:8: "He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love." Acts 10:34-35: "Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness is accepted with him." 12. From the foregoing testimonies we learn the following things respecting the character of God: 13. First, that he was God before the world was created, and the same God that he was after it was created. 14. Secondly, that he is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting, and will be to everlasting. 15. 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 for ever; and that his course is one eternal round, without variation. 16. Fourthly, that he is a God of truth and cannot lie. 17. Fifthly, that he is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him. 18. Sixthly, that he is love. 19. 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 greater than he who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfill 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. From Lecture Fourth 19. Such, then, is the foundation which is laid, through the revelation of the attributes of God, for the exercise of faith in him for life and salvation; and *seeing that these are attributes of the Deity, they are unchangeable—being the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever—which gives to the minds of the Latter-day Saints the same power and authority to exercise faith in God which the Former-day Saints had; so that all the saints, in this respect, have been, are, and will be, alike until the end of time; for God never changes, therefore his attributes and character remain forever the same. And as it is through the revelation of these that a foundation is laid for the exercise of faith in God unto life and salvation, the foundation, therefore, for the exercise of faith was, is, and ever will be, the same; so that all men have had, and will have, an equal privilege. QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON THE FOREGOING PRINCIPLES* What was shown in the third lecture? It was shown that correct ideas of the character of God are necessary in order to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation; and that without correct ideas of his character, men could not have power to exercise faith in him unto life and salvation, but that correct ideas of his character, as far as his character was concerned in the exercise of faith in him, lay a sure foundation for the exercise of it. (Lecture 4:1.) What object had the God of Heaven in revealing his attributes to men? That through an acquaintance with his attributes they might be enabled to exercise faith in him so as to obtain eternal life. (Lecture 4:2.) Could men exercise faith in God without an acquaintance with his attributes, so as to be enabled to lay hold of eternal life? They could not. (Lecture 4:2-3.) What account is given of the attributes of God in his revelations? First, Knowledge; secondly, Faith or Power; thirdly, Justice; fourthly, Judgment; fifthly, Mercy; and sixthly, Truth. (Lecture 4:4-10.)

Before I begin a discussion of the ellipses used above I would like to clarify one thing. Latter-day Saint Christians believe and believed the verses in scripture discussing the eternal nature of God. This includes Joseph Smith, even up to the time of his death. The only statement by Joseph Smith that could be construed to state differently is from the King Follet discourse, which I should point out, has never been canonized into the LDS canon of scripture. In the book How Wide the Divide, Stephen Robinson, when discussing canonized passages that teach the doctrine of deification, points out that:

“To the scriptural passages above I would add Lorenzo Snow’s epigram and Joseph Smith’s statement in the funeral address for King Follet that God is an exalted man. Neither statement is scriptural or canonized in the technical sense, and neither have been explained or elucidated to the church in any official manner, but are so widely accepted by Latter-day Saints that this technical point has become moot.”(4)

This is an important point to keep in mind as I move on in the paper. It will be critical to understand that not only was this statement never canonized it was never explained any further by Joseph Smith. The fact that the teaching about God in the King Follet sermon is one that Joseph Smith did not view as a complete change, but rather an expanded understanding of God, will be discussed further below.

Returning to the quotes above, Mr. Jones provides only three statements to establish his position. Of those three the strongest one that establishes God as God from all eternity in the way an evangelical Christian would interpret it is the first from Psalms 90:2. However, the language Mr. Jones leaves out “Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world” could be interpreted to mean that God was God only before the beginning of this world, or this eternity. As to what God was before “the mountains were brought forth, or ever…formed the earth” the scripture is silent.

The other passage above that may lend credibility to Mr. Jones position is from Lecture Third item 19. However, viewing Lecture Third item 19 in total context, we see that the passage is focusing on the character and divine attributes of God, not on him always being God in the classical theistic sense. The last excerpts from Lecture Fourth focus entirely on the eternality and unchangeability of God’s characters and attributes but not on God existing always as God. In fact even in the ellipses Mr. Jones uses from Lecture Fourth it is clear that these passages speak of God’s attributes and character rather than whether or not God was always God. Now, taking Lecture Third, as a whole, we can present a summary of what we actually learn from the lecture. A review of items 12-18 reveal that we know that the character of God includes the fact that He was God before and after the world was created, that He is merciful, slow to anger, full of goodness, that He does not change regarding these things, He is a God of truth and does not lie, He is not a respecter of persons and He is love. Again we see that the language of being everlasting, without variableness, and unchanging apply to these characteristics of God and not to the question of whether or not he was always God.

I understand that Mr. Jones and his associates will not agree with the interpretation of the passages above. Perhaps I am belaboring this point. Yet I think it is worthwhile to explore the issue and concept of God’s immutability and the eternality from the LDS viewpoint. First is the interpretive view Latter-day Saint Christians place, and did place, on these passages. The second is how the LDS view is consistent with the Hebrew view to whom the majority of the passages regarding the God’s everlasting or eternal nature came. Wade Englund discusses the interpretive view:

Interpretive accuracy and exegetical soundness. The remaining biblical passages refer to God as the "everlasting God" (Gen 2:33; Isa 40:28; Rom 16:26), or the "Eternal God"(De 33:27), and that "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."(Ps 90:2). While these passages may seem clear as to how long God has been God--particularly the last passage, an exegetical case can be made that even these passages do not negate the possibility of God having been something other than God, nor do they necessarily mean that there has never been a time when God has not been God. Take for example those biblical passages which talk of the "Lord God of Israel, from eternity, and to eternity"(Ps 41:13, 106:48). Given the finite existence of Israel, do these passage negate the possibility of God having been something other than the God of Israel, and do they necessarily mean that there has never been a time when God has not been the God of Israel? What about the several "eternal covenants"(1 Chron 16:17; Ps 89:34; 105:8-10; 111:9; Isa 54:10; 55:3; 61:8; Jer 32:40; 50:5; Ezek 37:26; Heb 13:20-21), or "everlasting covenants"(Ge 17:7; Le 16:34; 24:8; 2Sa 23:5; Isa 24:5), which God has made with Israel? Given that these covenants were first made, and some were even changed, or subsumed, at some point during mortal history (Heb 7:22; 9:15;12:24); does the designation "eternal covenant" mean that there has never been a time when each of these covenants did not exist as a covenant? Finally, there are numerous biblical passages which speak in the present tense of things which are not yet, but will be "eternal", or "everlasting", in the future. (Ps 112:6; Isa. 51:11; 55:3; 56:5; 60:15; Mt 19:29; Lk 16:9; Jn 10:28; 17:22; Act 13:48; Heb 9:15; 1Jn 2:25), or where they have become such at some point in time (Jn 3:36; 2 Th 2:16; Heb 5:9; 9:12; 1Jn 5:11). With this understanding in mind, it is clear that, while the biblical passage that refer to God as an "eternal" or "everlasting" God, may be interpreted by some to mean that he has always been God; they do not, in light of other biblical passages, require such an interpretation; and can even leave open the consistent belief that God has not always been God. And, given the fact that the LDS have long held that the contents of the Bible, and other books of canon, are the "word of God", and true; and given the wide-spread belief (though not doctrine) of LDS members, which they share in common with Joseph Smith, that God, the Father, was once a spirit personage, who became a mortal man, died and was resurrected, even as was the case with his Son, who has done nothing save what the Father has also done (Jn 5:19); and given that the LDS see God's eternal nature, and his having once been a man, to be consistent concepts that are simple and true; one should easily be able to determine that Joseph Smith, and the members of the LDS faith, accept, as valid, the later interpretation of the "eternal" and "everlasting" passages. Since it is the LDS perspective that is under question, this is the perspective that counts. (5)

The above demonstrates there are many differing connotations on what exactly eternity, everlasting and eternal means. The evangelical LDS critic always applies the metaphysical restraint on passages that refer to God and eternity while they ignore the same restraint for other verses speaking of things that were considered eternal and everlasting. Latter-day Saints may apply a different paradigm than evangelicals. This does not mean LDS Christians are wrong nor does it mean that they changed their doctrine. In fact the LDS view of unchanging and eternal is more in line with Hebrew thinking which was not bound by the Hellenistic metaphysical mindset. Barry Bickmore writes:

Our detractors constantly point out Bible verses concerning God's unchanging and eternal nature to show that the scriptures do contradict the Prophets teachings. Even the Book of Mormon states, "I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from

all eternity to all eternity." (Moroni 8:18) However, it can easily be shown that the LDS interpretation of the scriptures is in harmony with the mindset of the ancient Hebrews, while mainstream Christians apply Hellenistic assumptions to the text.

The ancient Greeks were absolutely enamored with metaphysics – with "being," "essence," "eternity," etc. The Greek philosophers pondered incessantly about how the material world relates to the true reality, whereas for the Hebrews the material world was reality. When they wrote

about God, they didn't obsess about his "being" or "essence," but rather focused on His relationship to men and the world. Likewise, when they spoke of God's nature and eternity, they used relative terms -- relative, that is, to them. For example, many of the Biblical passages which speak of God's immutability do so in terms of His honesty, justice, mercy, and constancy. (See Titus 1:2; Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hebrews 6:18; Genesis 18:25; Ezekiel 18:14-32; Isaiah 46:10-11; Mark 13:31; Matt. 24:35; Luke 1:20; James 1:17; Daniel 6:26: Hebrews 6:18-19) Christopher Stead explains, "The Old Testament writers sometimes speak of God as unchanging. In Christian writers influenced by Greek philosophy this doctrine is developed in an absolute metaphysical sense. Hebrew writers are more concrete, and their thinking includes two main points: (1) God has the dignity appropriate to old age, but without its disabilities . . . ; and (2) God is faithful to his covenant promises, even though men break theirs . . ."3 (Cf. Isaiah 40:28; Exodus 34:9-10) When God is described as "From everlasting to everlasting" (Psalm 41:13 NEB), the word translated as "everlasting" is the Hebrew olam, which means "(practically) eternity" or

"time out of mind."4 Another Psalm (104:5 NASB) says that God "established the earth upon its foundations, so that it will not totter forever and ever." And yet Isaiah (24:20 NEB) saw a future time when "the earth reels to and fro like a drunken man . . ..” To the Hebrew mind these passages were not contradictory, because terms like "everlasting" and "forever" were

relative terms, and they had no conception of "eternity" and "infinity" as modern people see them.

So it is with the Latter-day Saints. We see such scriptural statements about the "everlasting" and "unchanging" God as an indication of God's perfect and unchanging moral character, as well as God's eternity relative to men. God is spoken of as the "only true God," because in relation to us this is perfectly true. Given this Hebrew mindset, it is easy to see how Latter-day Saints can accept the biblical statements about God and also believe that God was once a man.... (6)

Jones:

So what’s the problem?

Today, our beliefs on just this one basic point are so different that we have

traditional Christian churches, and the Mormon Church, each claiming that the

other has a false god, or gods:

The above is an attempt by Mr. Jones to define the LDS Church outside of the umbrella of Christianity. His comment that we have traditional Christian Churches and the Mormon Church is his attempt to draw a line in the sand. He attempts to accomplish exclusion of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from the definition of Christianity. His use of “traditional Christian churches” also is an attempt to make it seem that there is an us or them approach. This dichotomy is not quite as cut and dry as he would like his reader to think. Of course we are not sure what Mr. Jones means by traditional Christian Churches. Does he mean protestant? Does he mean only those of the evangelical strain? Does he include Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic and Oneness Pentecostals? Is he aware that there are varying views on God’s nature among some of these groups and differing views among the pre-Nicene Apologists and post-Nicene Fathers? (7) If they differ in their view from Mr. Jones does he exclude them from the umbrella of Christianity? Perhaps, perhaps not. This is what Peterson and Ricks, (8) and Robinson (9) call the exclusion (from Christianity) by definition.

Jones:

“The false gods of Christendom bear the same names as the true Gods of the

Bible. Beyond this they have little resemblance. They are described in the

creeds that the Lord told Joseph Smith were `an abomination in his sight’ “

(Apostle Bruce R. McConkie, A New Witness For The Articles of Faith, p. 55)

The above quote from Bruce R. McConkie is no doubt couched in strong language. This was often a hallmark of the writings of Elder McConkie. However, I must point out that the above reference, as with other references to unofficial publications by members of The LDS Church are the views of the author. This is made clear in the preface of the book Mr. Jones quotes above:

Only the scriptures, official statements, and other publications written under assignment from the First Presidency and the Council of the Twelve Apostles are considered authorized publications of the Church. Other books, including those written by General Authorities, such as this one, are the responsibility of the author. (10)

This is a critical distinction for much of what anti-Mormon writers rely on in their criticism of The LDS Church comes from sources outside the above criteria. Most of the critic’s arguments fall apart when they are forced into an examination of official LDS doctrine. This in no way means I disagree with the statement above by Elder McConkie, nor am I endorsing it. It is fairly clear that from the inception of the Church, Latter-day Saints have rejected the statements about God found in the extra Biblical creeds of orthodox Christianity. This is the point Elder McConkie is making. Never the less the statement does not exclude other sects of Christianity from the definition of Christianity as are our critics are so quick to do to us.

Jones:

What happened?

If, only 162 years ago, we believed the same essentials of faith in God, how

is it that we now have different Gods?

The straw man is here reinforced. We did not believe the same essentials. The answer, Mr. Jones, is nothing happened the way you insinuate here. There was evolution in understanding about God but not the drastic change that is insisted upon.

Jones:

Evidently it all started at the April, 1844 Conference of the Church, when

Joseph Smith made public a dramatic change in his teachings about the nature

of God. He said:

“We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will

refute that idea...he was once a man like us” (TPJS2, p. 345-346; A-7)

As noted above, this sermon was delivered "at the April conference of the

Church, 1844." (TPJS, p. 342; A-7) As most LDS know, that makes this message

the word of the Lord to them (see Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p.155).

Joseph no longer believed and taught, as he did in the 1835 D&C, that God was

God from all eternity. That which was absolutely necessary for our salvation

in 1835, was no longer true nine years later. The new LDS God, starting in

1844, was once a mortal man, without the powers of Godhood, who became a god.

Prior to 1844, God had been the independent creator of all things. Now, he

was dependent on another, who came before him, to bring him into being and

sustain him.

Joseph Smith’s teachings about the nature of God had been nearly in line with

the Bible, the Book of Mormon, and the Christian churches. But, with this new

God, he had departed from his own faith and scriptures (apostatized).

Ironically, many Latter-day Saints profess to believe both, that God has been

God from all eternity, and that he was once a man who became a God. But

Joseph Smith didn't believe both at the same time. First, he admitted having

believed the 1835 doctrine by saying, "We have imagined and supposed that God

was God from all eternity." Then he said he was refuting that idea. In other

words, in 1844, he was proving it wrong. It was no longer true.

The approach to the presentation of these issues by Mr. Jones is such that I will need to break the above down into pieces. Mr. Jones begins with one sentence from The King Follet discourse. This is his sole evidence of what he calls a “dramatic change.” How dramatic of a change this teaching was or is will be discussed further.

Before that discussion I want to examine the statement by Mr. Jones “As most LDS know, that makes this message the word of the Lord to them (see Mormon Doctrine, 1979, p.155).” I was rather surprised because I did not know this. Perhaps I fall out of the purview of “most LDS” but I always thought I was a relatively main stream Latter-day Saint Christian. I always thought the word of the Lord to Latter-day Saints was in the LDS canon and official pronouncements of the First Presidency. For something to be considered doctrine it is required to be presented to The Church and accepted based on the law of common consent (see D&C 26:2, 28:12-13). In other words to become doctrine the item presented must be conference ratified. This is the pattern that has been established from the inception of the LDS Church. There is no doubt that Latter-day Saints view the remarks of the general authorities of the Church that are given in General Conference as valuable and insightful. The addresses are to be read for inspiration, guidance and for the benefit of the saints. They may even consider the talks given in general conference as direction regarding what doctrines and teachings should be emphasized at any given time. However they are not considered the word of the Lord on the same level as canonized scripture and official pronouncements by The First Presidency unless they are presented to the Church and thus canonized. The only exception to this procedure is when what is taught is in agreement with the standard works of the Church.

One of the most recent examples of this procedure was in the October 1978 session of general conference:

Membership approves revelation

Church News, October 7, 1978, p.5

The revelation extending priesthood and temple blessings to all worthy male members was accepted Saturday afternoon, Sept. 30, by the members of the Church "as the word and will of the Lord." At the second general session of conference, President N. Eldon Tanner presented for approval the revelation, which had been announced June 9. President Tanner said, "President Kimball has asked that I advise the conference that after he received this revelation, which came to him after extended meditation and prayer in the sacred rooms of the holy temple, he presented it to his counselors, who accepted and approved it. "It was then presented to the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles, who unanimously approved it, and was subsequently presented to all other General Authorities, who likewise approved it unanimously.

After reading the June announcement, President Tanner said, "Recognizing Spencer W. Kimball as the prophet, seer and revelator and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it is proposed that we, as a constituent assembly, accept this revelation as the word and will of the Lord. All in favor, please signify by raising your right hands." President Tanner said that approval by the congregation in the Tabernacle appeared unanimous. (My emphasis)

As I stated above, I was so surprised by the statement about all information from a conference is the word of the Lord that I thought I would look at the reference Mr. Jones used from Mormon Doctrine.

CONFERENCES

See DISTRICTS, FAST MEETINGS, SACRAMENT MEETINGS, SOLEMN ASSEMBLIES, TESTIMONY MEETINGS, WORSHIP. 1. Latter-day Saints assemble periodically in various conferences "to worship the King, the Lord of hosts" (Zech. 14:16-19); to be built up in faith, testimony, and desires of righteousness; to transact the business of the Church; to sustain the officers whom the Lord has appointed to administer the affairs of his kingdom; and to receive, from those appointed so to serve, the counsel, inspiration, and revelation needed in both temporal and spiritual fields.

Conferences are far more than religious conventions in which views are expressed, differences resolved, and policies adopted. Rather they consist in a series of meetings at which the mind and will of the Lord is manifest to the people by the mouths of his servants. The Church being a kingdom, not a democracy, instruction and direction comes from above; it does not originate with the citizens but with the King. Songs, prayers, sermons, testimonies, reports, and sometimes recreational undertakings are woven into conference schedules. (11)

The passage by Elder McConkie does not say that the word of the Lord is given rather that the will of the Lord is manifest. There is a difference. Our canonized scripture is the word of the Lord. The mind and will of the Lord from our conferences are provided to instruct, edify and guide. Conference talks are only officially the word of the Lord once they enter into the canon by the prescribed and established procedures or if they are in agreement with the current canon. If a sermon given in conference (or at any other point in time for that matter) is outside of the standard canon it must be ratified by the Church to be considered doctrine by which we are bound. Besides, last time I checked the book Mormon Doctrine was not the official manual for LDS Church teaching and protocol. If Mr. Jones wants to tell us what the word of the Lord is to us I suggest he rely on official statements of procedure. As can be seen from the above, Mr. Jones flat out missed the mark on this one.

Moving on, Mr. Jones now has, with one fell swoop, relying on one lone sentence concluded that Joseph Smith no longer believed as he did in 1835. Perhaps Mr. Jones just might consider that as the Prophet Joseph Smith received revelation over the course of his ministry that additional light and knowledge added greater understanding to exactly what certain verses of scripture speaking of God’s eternality really mean. Mr. Jones then puts words into Joseph Smith’s mouth when he says “That which was absolutely necessary for our salvation in 1835, was no longer true nine years later.” I am not sure where Mr. Jones is coming from on this one. I have read the King Follet discourse from which Mr. Jones is quoting many times. I have found nothing to indicate that Joseph Smith said that which was essential for salvation nine years previously was no longer essential. Remember that the Lectures on Faith that Mr. Jones quotes from tells us that an understanding of God’s nature is essential for salvation. The writer of the lectures then provides information that, as demonstrated above, focuses primarily on God’s characteristics. Reviewing the King Follet discourse, we find that Joseph Smith is reinforcing this point as he teaches more about the nature of God and His characteristics:

In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning—to the morn of creation. There is the starting point for us to look to, in order to understand and be fully acquainted with the mind, purposes and decrees of the Great Elohim, who sits in yonder heavens as he did at the creation of this world. It is necessary for us to have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. (12)

Additionally, I wonder if Mr. Jones missed the language directly following the quote he uses from the King Follet sermon where the prophet tells us “These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God…(13). So Joseph is still telling us it is necessary to understand the nature of God, and his character. He is only expanding upon our understanding. Mr. Jones sees this as a flat out turn around. Others see it as additional light, knowledge and understanding while still viewing God as eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, etc.

The fact that the fullness of Godhead encompasses these attributes and that Joseph Smith believed this close to the time of the King Follet Discourse is exhibited by D&C 132:20 which says, when speaking of the LDS belief in human deification, “Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.” (My emphasis). This revelation was recorded July 12, 1843, only 10 months prior to the King Follett discourse. The idea being taught in the passage from D&C 132 is that those children of our Heavenly Father that are deified will have attributes that are considered everlasting and eternal. This passage of LDS scripture is a strong example that Joseph Smith’s view of the unchanging nature of God was not a complete change and that “Joseph no longer believed and taught, as he did” in prior years as Mr. Jones insists. Rather, a different and additional perspective is being added.

That Joseph Smith viewed this teaching presented in 1844 as consistent with the passages in The Lectures on Faith and other similar passages in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and Pearl of Great Price is further illustrated by the fact that these passages were left intact and still are. They were believed by Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saints in 1844 and are today. If Latter-day Saint Christians really did view this as a change than it would have been simple to change the passages that seem difficult. I am aware from personal correspondence with Mr. Jones that he believes there is a lack of integrity in other changes in LDS scripture. Why then were these other passages not changed to coincide with this supposed about face in the teachings of Joseph Smith? Since there was an 1844 addition of the Doctrine and Covenants published it seems that Joseph Smith would have had opportunity, prior to him being murdered, to change the canon to coincide with this supposed about face. That no such adjustment or changes were made strengthens the LDS position that the ideas presented in the King Follet discourse were not viewed as an major about face. That Mr. Jones finds it ironic that “many Latter-day Saints profess to believe both, that God has been God from all eternity, and that he was once a man who became a God” is frankly, his problem. Just because we may interpret passages of scripture with additional revelation, light and knowledge does not make a belief ironic. Because we do not interpret scripture with the same metaphysical Hellenistic universal view as Mr. Jones, does not make it the change Mr. Jones thinks is there. In making these claims Mr. Jones demonstrates his ignorance of a full scope of LDS doctrine and the belief that both God and man are eternal in nature. I would suggest he prayerfully study D&C 93 for further light and knowledge on this topic.

To summarize we can see that Joseph Smith held beliefs in 1835 that were expanded upon in 1844. The ideas he presented were not a complete change. That they added additional light and knowledge and a different perspective is not questioned. Robert Millet provides comments on the King Follet discourse and earlier LDS teachings that further strengthen this idea:

Finally, Joseph Smith's teachings about Deity in no way suggest that God is a finite being. Elohim is an exalted man, but he possesses in their fulness the attributes of Godhood. We have no indication whatever that Joseph changed his views on God's infinite nature between the time of the Lectures on Faith and the King Follett Sermon. In short, I find no evidence to suggest that Joseph the Prophet "outgrew" the lessons about God found in the Book of Mormon (for example, 2 Nephi. 9:20; Alma 26:35; Moroni. 7:22) or the Lectures on Faith (4:11-19), or that he in some way "progressed" beyond the notion that our Father in Heaven is, in fact, God Almighty. M. L. Davis, a Washington correspondent for the New York Enquirer offered this description of Joseph Smith in a letter to his wife dated 6 February 1840:

My dear Mary:--I went last evening to hear "Joe Smith." the celebrated Mormon, expound his doctrine. I, with several others, had a desire to understand his tenets as explained by himself. He is not an educated man; but he is a plain, sensible, strong minded man. Everything he says, is said in a manner to leave an impression that he is sincere. There is no levity, no fanaticism, no want of dignity in his deportment. . . .

He commenced by saying, that he knew the prejudices which were abroad in the world against him, but requested us to pay no respect to the rumors which were in circulation respecting him or his doctrines. He was accompanied by three or four of his followers. He said, "I will state to you our belief, so far as time will permit." "I believe," said he, "that there is a God, possessing all the attributes ascribed to Him by all Christians of all denominations; that He reigns over all things in heaven and on earth, and that all are subject to his power."

He then spoke rationally of the attributes of Divinity, such as foreknowledge, mercy &c. (Quoted in Ehat and Cook, eds., Words of Joseph Smith, 32)

James Burgess recorded a sermon of the Prophet delivered on 9 July 1843 in which Joseph explains how God can be both omnipresent and at the same time "a personage of tabernacle." "What part of God is omnipresent?" Joseph asked. He responded: "It is the Spirit of God which proceeds from him; consequently, God is in the four winds of heaven, and when man receives intelligence is it not by the Spirit of God?" (Quoted in Ehat and Cook, eds., Words of Joseph Smith, 230-31, spelling and punctuation corrected). One is able to better appreciate Joseph Smith's humility before the Almighty in a prayer offered on 23 August 1842:

O, thou who seeth and knoweth the hearts of all men; thou eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent Jehovah, God; thou Elohim, that sitteth, as saith the Psalmist, enthroned in heaven; look down upon thy servant Joseph at this time; and let faith on the name of thy Son Jesus Christ, to a greater degree than thy servant ever yet has enjoyed, be conferred upon him, even the faith of Elijah; and let the lamp of eternal life be lit up in his heart, never to be taken away. And let the words of eternal life be poured upon the soul of thy servant, that he may know thy will, thy statutes, and thy commandments, and thy judgments to do them. (Personal Writings of Joseph Smith, 252-53,spelling and punctuation corrected).

In 1842, just two years before his death, the Prophet explained concerning the Great God: "The past, the present, and the future were and are, with Him, one eternal now."(History of the Church 4:597). Simply because God has not always been God, it need not follow that he is not now a possessor of that fulness of light, truth, and glory that constitute him as infinite.

In the Lectures on Faith, God is described as being the perfect and infinite embodiment of every good attribute and virtue. For example, he is said to possess a fulness of knowledge, faith or power, justice, judgment, mercy, and truth. Indeed, the lectures explain that unless the Saint does know and acknowledge that God possesses these attributes in perfection he cannot exercise faith in him unto life and salvation (see Lectures on Faith, 4:1-19). But though God is absolute in the sense that he embodies and possesses the perfections of Deity, he is not absolute or transcendent in the classical creedal sense--in the sense that he is unapproachable, is "the wholly other," beyond the reach or comprehension of finite man. Rather, the God described in the Lectures on Faith, like the God spoken of a decade later in the King Follett Sermon, is one who can be known and understood, who can be approached and seen, even by mortal man. Lecture 2 declares:

Let us here observe that after any portion of the human family are made acquainted with the important fact that there is a God, who has created and does uphold all things, the extent of their knowledge respecting his character and glory will depend upon their diligence and faithfulness in seeking after him, until, like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, they shall obtain faith in God, and power with him to behold him face to face. (4:55)

Lecture 5 teaches that man can become a joint heir, a coinheritor with Christ to all that the Father has; further, he can, through the Spirit, become one with the Father and the Son, be "transformed into the same image or likeness" of "him who fills all in all." Thus, "as the Son partakes of the fullness of the Father through the Spirit, so the saints are, by the same Spirit, to be partakers of the same fullness, to enjoy the same glory; for as the Father and the Son are one, so, in like manner, the saints are to be one in them" (5:2-3). In short, the God of the Lectures on Faith is one who desires to glorify his children and make them even as he is. (14)

Finally I would like to make two additional points. Above Mr. Jones states “The new LDS God, starting in 1844, was once a mortal man, without the powers of Godhood, who became a god. Prior to 1844, God had been the independent creator of all things. Now, he was dependent on another, who came before him, to bring him into being and sustain him.” Aside from the fact that the language of a “new LDS God” is the worst example of a red herring, I found very little in the King Follet discourse to back up what Mr. Jones insists. No where could I find that God is not the independent creator of all things as far as we may interpret what all things may mean. No where in the discourse did I find the teaching that God was dependent on another who came before Him. Mr. Jones is applying his own interpretation and putting words into the mouth of Joseph Smith. However, there is much to indicate that Joseph viewed God the Father’s mortal experience much the same as Jesus Christ’s. For example in the very discourse under scrutiny we find:

These are incomprehensible ideas to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the Gospel to know for a certainty the Character of God, and to know that we may converse with him as one man converses with another, and that he was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ himself did; and I will show it from the Bible.

I wish I was in a suitable place to tell it, and that I had the trump of an archangel, so that I could tell the story in such a manner that persecution would cease for ever. What did Jesus say? (Mark it, Elder Rigdon!) The Scriptures inform us that Jesus said; As the Father hath power in Himself, even so hath the Son power—to do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious—in a manner to lay down His body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. Do we believe it? If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible. (Footnote: The argument here made by the Prophet is vey much strengthened by the following passage “Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. John 5:29)

The Scriptures say it, and I defy all the learning and wisdom and all the combined powers of earth and hell together to refute it. (15)

These are the first principles of consolation. How consoling to the mourners when they are called to part with a husband, wife, father, mother, child, or dear relative, to know that, although the earthly tabernacle is laid down and dissolved, they shall rise again to dwell in everlasting burnings in immortal glory, not to sorrow, suffer, or die any more; but they shall be heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ. What is it? To inherit the same power, the same glory and the same exaltation, until you arrive at the station of a God, and ascend the throne of eternal power, the same as those who have gone before. What did Jesus do? Why; I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same…(16) (Bolding and emphasis added)

This leads to the second point regarding the nature of Jesus Christ. Classical theists view the Father, Son and Holy Ghost as One God but separate persons or personalities. In general Latter-day Saints would agree. Where we differ is in the creedal declarations making the Father, Son and Holy Ghost of the same substance. An evangelical Christian believes that the Father is a spirit. They may also believe that Christ was a spirit prior to his mortal existence. I ask then how does the classical theist reconcile Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and forever" with the pre-mortal, mortal and post mortal experience of Jesus Christ? If Jesus is of the same substance as the Father, and Jesus existed with the Father prior to his mortal life (John 1:1), entered mortality and took upon himself the form of a man (Philippians 2:6-8), grew and learned (Luke 2:40, Hebrews 2:10, 5:8), was resurrected with a glorified immortal body (Luke 24:36-39, Acts 1:3, 1 Corinthians 15), ascended into heaven with that glorified body (Acts 1:9-11), is in heaven with that body (Acts 7:55-56), and will return with that body (Acts 1:11, 1 John 3:2), then how do classical theists, such as Mr. Jones reconcile Hebrews 13:8 to these definite "changes" in the bodily nature of Jesus and God?

One way they explain it is that Jesus has two distinct natures, one human (including a human body and spirit) and one divine (which is the Divine Substance). Jesus' human nature grew and was exalted, whereas the Divine Nature has always been changeless. However, even this seems to fall short of a pure unchanging God and cannot really be coordinated with the monotheistic statements of the Old Testament. The big question is actually how a static "Substance" could have any meaningful relationship to a changing human nature. So by providing a reconciliation with Hebrews 13:8 Mr. Jones must place the same restrictions on himself and other classical theists that are placed on Joseph Smith and the supposed changes he made. It seems if Christ was one of the three personalities of God that existed as a spirit and was of the same substance as God prior to his earthly ministry, and he now exists as a resurrected glorified Man, or “theophoros”, the forever God Man, (Hank Hannegraaff, President of CRI and host of the daily radio call in show The Bible Answer Man often uses the term “theophoros”, the forever God-Man, when emphasizing the point that Jesus is in heaven with his resurrected glorified body forever) that there was a substantial change in God's nature. Additionally, Jesus Christ now has additional experiences and perspectives that God the Father has not had. Perhaps the writers of the New Testament “changed” the Hebrew view of God a tad bit. Or, perhaps they added an additional perspective to our understanding about God similar to Joseph Smith in the King Follet discourse. As Wade Englund writes:

...doesn't the very subject matter of the King Follet Discourse (the eternal and immortal nature of man, eternal life is in knowing the Father and the Son, the righteous will live in eternal burnings, God is a self-existent being, the spirit of man is co-eternal with God--having no beginning and no end, they are one eternal round) serve more to give new meaning and understanding to, rather than contradict, the pre-1844 revelations regarding the "eternal" and "everlasting" God? (17)

The answer to Wade Englund’s question is no doubt a resounding yes!

Jones:

On seeing this for the first time, it’s understandable that most LDS would

want to question this information, so let’s answer some of the more frequent

questions:

Mr. Jones now moves on to the substance of his paper. Because he repeats some of his arguments in expanding his position I too may repeat some of the points I have made above and if necessary add to my arguments.

Mr. Jones suggests that most Latter-day Saints would want to question his sketchy and forced introduction. I agree. However, his suggestion that this is news to Latter-day Saint Christians may be not be correct. In fact the forced questions he is about to present suggest that Latter-day Saints are, at least in general, acquainted with the Lectures on Faith. If not then why would he assume these questions would be asked? Almost all are familiar with parts of the King Follet Discourse. In other words the information Jones presents is not first time news to most Latter-day Saints. Additionally the use of questions in this format to structure his criticism forces a one sided debate. Mr. Jones sets up the question and then proceeds to answer. The questioner is given no chance for rejoinder. It is doubtful an actual conversation would run so smoothly in Mr. Jones favor. This may be a minor point in the overall discussion at hand. Never the less it is a tactic that makes the questioner look like a bit of an idiot and, in my opinion, is not really scholarly in its approach.

Jones:

Question #1:

Haven’t I heard that the Lectures on Faith are not scripture and, never

really were?

Answer:

The preface to the 1835 D&C (A-1) states that the 1835 edition "contains in

short the leading items of the religion which we profess to believe". The

next paragraph says that the first part of the book contains a series of

lectures which "embrace the important doctrine of salvation" and for that

reason they were made a part of the 1835 D&C.

Then on A-3, you'll see a photo copy of the title pages of the two sections

of the 1835 D&C. On the first page of the Lectures on Faith (top left), the

title states that the Lectures are on the Doctrine of the church. The right

hand page, the first page of the revelations, is labeled the Covenants and

Commandments. The language in the Preface, the minutes of the General

Assembly (A-2) and these two title pages make it clear that the Lectures on

Faith were canonized as the Doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenants. They were

part of the Standard Works for 86 years until they were quietly removed in

1921.

Mr. Jones is correct in his description of the preface and title page to the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants. However his application and interpretation of the preface and weight he argues it gives to the lectures is flawed. Before I explain why his application is flawed a brief history of the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants and the Lectures on Faith are in order. One of the quotes by Wade Englund above gives a brief summary of the history of The Lectures on Faith. I want to provide a bit more detail.

In September of 1834 a committee of four men were appointed to organize items pertaining to the doctrines and government of the Church. The minutes of the Kirtland High Council of September 24, 1834 read in part:

The council then proceeded to appoint a committee to arrange the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ, for the government of the Church of Latter-day Saints, which Church was organized and commenced its rise on the 6th of April, 1830. These items are to be taken from the Bible, Book of Mormon, and the revelations which have been given to the Church up to this date, or that shall be given until such arrangements are made. (18)

The committee was to be comprised of Joseph Smith, Sidney Rigdon, Oliver Cowdry, and Frederick G. Williams. It is important to note that the resources the committee were to utilize were the canonized scripture of the Church up to that point in time and any additional revelations that may be received between the date of the establishment of the committee and the publication of their final product. This is even more important as far as the Lectures are concerned since their entire substance was primarily from these resources in an interpretive sense.

On August 17, 1835 the finished work of the committee was presented to a general assembly of the priesthood in order to “ to take into consideration the labors of a committee appointed by a general assembly of the Church on the 24th of September, 1834, for the purpose of arranging the items of the doctrine of Jesus Christ for the government of the Church.” (19) Interestingly, Joseph Smith and Frederick Williams were absent from that meeting “visiting the Saints in Michigan.”(20) The purpose of the assembly was consideration of the book the committee had compiled. It was presented in two parts. The first section contained the Lectures on Faith. The second was comprised various revelations received by Joseph Smith and other declarations that the Church considered inspired. The first part containing the Lectures were called The Doctrine of the Church, the second part containing the revelations were titled The Covenants of the Church. It is instructive in considering whether the Lectures were scripture and on par with the revelations that the separation of them into two distinct works was made from the very inception of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. This lends support to the fact that they were not considered as important as scripture, nor as scripture, like the revelations they were bound together with. Keep in mind that the ideas presented in the lectures were pulled form the Bible, Book of Mormon and the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants, The Book of Commandments. They were an interpretation of the topics these works presented based on the light and knowledge revealed to the Church up to that point in time.

The Lectures on Faith were initially developed for presentation to the School of the Elders. The school took place around November or early December 1834. The historical record is not clear as to who delivered the Lectures on Faith during the School of the Elders. Speculations have been made that Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon provided the primary teaching in at the school. However, according to Dahl and Tate those who make this claim fail in the provision of source citations for their conclusions. (21) The Lectures on Faith were presented in Kirtland Ohio apparently at the printing office located near the Kirtland Temple site. One attendee indicated that Sidney Rigdon presided over the school. (22) Exactly what significance this holds is not clear. It could indicate that Rigdon held a prominent role in the development of the lectures that further grew into his being a critical player in the authorship of the lectures. Regardless of their delivery, after the school was complete, the lectures then were prepared for publication. It is critical to note that the seven lectures comprising the Lectures on Faith were considered “the first installment” in a plan for the development of additional lectures, or treatises, that would expound the “doctrine of Jesus Christ.” (23) However, the plan for additional expositions on various doctrinal topics never came to fruition.

There are a number of interesting insights we can draw from the preceding items. First, the Lectures were delivered verbally before they were committed to writing. To what extent the written product includes the ideas presented in the School is not entirely clear. Surely the written product could differ in ideas, context and topic from the verbal teachings. Additionally, to what extent a setting of instruction and possible debate of the topics had on the final content must be considered when considering the Lectures as scripture or on par with the revelations. There is no doubt that the process which resulted in the Lectures on Faith were very different from the process involved in the receipt, writing and editing of the recorded revelations. This fact further reduces the equality of the Lectures to the revelations with which they were published.

Selective Lectures were published prior to their inclusion in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Lectures 5 and 6 were published in May of 1835 in the Messenger and advocate. Lecture 1 was published in June of 1835. The first publication of all seven of the Lectures were in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. From 1835 to 1921 the Lectures were published in all English editions of the Doctrine and Covenants but not all non-English editions. (24) One may wonder why, if the Lectures were considered canonized scripture as Mr. Jones suggests, why were they excluded from the publication of the Doctrine and Covenants in other languages? This seems to lend further evidence to their non-canonized status. From 1840-1843 Parley P. Pratt printed the Lectures separately from the Doctrine and Covenants in the Millennial Star. (25) Leland Gentry further summarizes:

The period between 1840 and 1900 can best be described as a "settling-in period," during which time use of the lectures solidified in the Church. In 1850, John Davis of Methyr Tydvil, Wales, made the lectures available in Welsh. Later, in 1878, Orson Pratt wrote from England wondering whether or not to include the lectures in a new publication of the Doctrine and Covenants which he was preparing. John Taylor, then president of the Twelve and presiding officer of the Church, replied: "The Lectures on Faith were published with the sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith and we do not feel that it is desirable to make any alteration in that regard, at any rate not at the present." Two decades later in 1897, Edwin F. Parry, a missionary in England and a writer for the Millennial Star, penned a brief article in which he recommended the lectures as "an excellent study for missionaries. . . . The lectures," he wrote, "are plain and logical, and every assertion made in them is fully sustained by conclusive scriptural proof." (26)

The above casts a number of doubts on Mr. Jones position. So far Mr. Jones has attempted to use the Lectures to show disparity in the later teachings about God by Joseph Smith. It seems odd that if the Lectures really do provide evidence that Joseph completely changed his views about God for the Church to continue to use them as late as 1900. John Taylor found no disparity, nor did Edwin F. Parry. Surely Elders Taylor and Parry were aware of Joseph Smith’s 1844 teachings about God. Orson Pratt provided Elder Taylor every opportunity to remove the Lectures at a relatively early date. He did not do so. He did, however, leave the door open for their removal in 1921. Had he felt the Lectures held a canonized status he more than likely would have been stronger in his endorsement. Elder Taylor’s comment that the Lectures were published with the “sanction and approval of the Prophet Joseph Smith” casts doubts as to his actual authorship of the Lectures. John Taylor was a contemporary of the Prophet. He most likely knew who wrote the Lectures. He could have stated that Joseph Smith wrote the Lectures at the point in time he made this statement, yet he did not.

In 1921 the Lectures were removed from publication with the Doctrine and Covenants. Critics such, as Mr. Jones view this as a de-canonization of the Lectures. But he misstates the process of the removal of the Lectures when he says “They were part of the Standard Works for 86 years until they were quietly removed in 1921.” Mr. Jones makes two fatal errors in this sentence. First, I have already demonstrated, to a certain extent, that the Lectures were not considered scripture nor on par with the revelations from their very inception. I will provide more evidence of this fact as I focus on the reasons for the removal, the 1835 preface to the Doctrine and Covenants and the Minutes from the August 1835 General Assembly of the Priesthood that considered the Doctrine and Covenants. Second, the Lectures were not “quietly removed.” Pure logic lends one to understand that if you have a copy of a book that is now missing seventy pages of previously included text, that is anything but quiet. However, the process was not secretive. Prior to the decision to remove the Lectures a committee was appointed to consider the matter. The members of the committee included Joseph Fielding Smith, John A. Widstoe, and James E. Talmege. James Talmege was the committee chairman. When the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants was published the introduction included the following:

Certain lessons, entitled "Lectures on Faith," which were bound in with the Doctrine and Covenants on some of its former issues, are not included in this edition. These lessons were prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-1835; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being other than theological lectures or lessons.

The disclosure in the introduction of the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants of the decision to not include the Lectures is once again anything but quiet.

Further commentary provides insight as to the reasoning behind the removal of the Lectures. Leland Gentry comments:

Some have wondered why the Lectures on Faith were removed from the Doctrine and Covenants. The answer is not difficult to find. Their inclusion in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants had gained for the lectures a position of honor not likely intended by those who first placed them there. They were study helps, not revelations. When it became apparent that some in the Church were according these doctrinal aids dignity equal to, and sometimes surpassing, that of the Revelation themselves, the lectures were removed. Joseph Fielding Smith, one of three apostles appointed to look into the question of removing the lectures, once explained: "The reason they were taken out [of the Doctrine and Covenants] was that they were not revelations; they were only 'helps.'" Although he had personal regard for the lectures and often cited them in his spoken and written works, Elder Smith wished it distinctly understood that the lectures were removed, not because, as some had claimed, "they contained false doctrine" but because they were "not now considered, and were not considered when they were placed in the Doctrine and Covenants, on a par with the Revelation."

Charles W. Penrose, member of the First presidency in 1921, was also in a position to know the facts. In a private letter, written prior to the deletion of the lectures, he stated:

The statement that the Lectures on Faith, which have been published from time to time in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants were never considered or published as Revelation is correct…They were considered to be very excellent expositions of the doctrines contained therein, but never ranked as the word of the Lord which is contained in the real book of Doctrine and Covenants…

There is no need of any regrets concerning the publication of the Lectures. They contain a great many very fine thoughts, well expressed, but they are not an essential part of the nook, and can be eliminated if necessary without any detriment to the Revelation contained in the book. (27) (Emphasis added)

Further, in 1921 Charles Penrose, delivered an address about the Holy Ghost. In the address he references the Lectures and even mentions the Fifth Lecture on Faith. However, he qualifies his endorsement of the Lectures by stating “There is one little point in regard to that which I will mention: In the book of D&C we have a number of lectures inserted in the first part; which are not revelations.” (28)

Now, lest Mr. Jones accuse me of focusing on commentary that is contemporary to the 1921 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants only, I would like to discuss both the preface of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and the minutes from the August 17, 1835 general assembly which considered the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Additionally, I would like to mention a few items about the Lectures between 1840 and 1921. However because Mr. Jones’ next question and response is integral to further discussion on this topic let me now provide it.

Jones:

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, pp. 255-257;

A-2 - The underlined passages will give you a quick overview)

Noel Reynolds points out “These lectures were only rarely used by scripture scholars, and were almost never mentioned or quoted in general conference talks.” (29). Above it has been demonstrated that Orson Pratt considered the removal of the Lectures as early as 1878. It was also shown that while John Taylor discouraged such an action, his endorsement of the lectures was far from the canonized status Mr. Jones attempts to give them. A search of the Journal of Discourses using the search term “Lectures on Faith” in the electronic library GospeLink (30) found only one reference to the Lectures:

The principles which we have presented before us in the plan of salvation require of us an effort, for we are told that if we would have the blessings of exaltation, we must continue unto the end; and, in the Lectures on Faith, contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants, we are informed that if we would attain to the blessings of eternal life, we do it at the sacrifice of all things. The principles connected with this law call upon us to study our acts, designs and intentions in life. (31)

Note that Elder Smith makes a separate reference to the Lectures by stating “in the Lectures on Faith, contained in the Book of Doctrine and Covenants...” which again demonstrates a separation from the revelations in the minds of early latter-day Saints.

A GospeLink search for “Lectures on Faith” of the Improvement Era found 12 references to the Lectures form 1897-1921. Of the twelve references only one citation would lend any credit to Mr. Jones argument. (32) The remaining pre 1921 references in the Improvement Era primarily refer to the Lectures in a historical context. A similar search was made of the 1879-1892 issues of The Contributor. Six references to the lectures were found. (33) The conference reports from 1897-1921 make no direct references to the lectures. A similar search of early LDS periodicals, which included the Messenger and Advocate 1834-1837, the Elder’s Journal 1837-1838 and the times and Seasons 1839-1844 found no direct mention of, or reference to, the Lectures. Interestingly, after 1921 up to 1970 I found 10 references to the Lectures in conference reports, which were all positive in their tone or use. So much for quietly removing the Lectures and shoving them under the table.

The above demonstrates that, as Noel Reynolds asserts, the Lectures were used sparsely in the Church. Only four items found in extensive searches of early church material lend any support to Mr. Jones position that the Lectures were canonized scripture (see footnotes 32 and 33). Consider that this is only four items in a large amount of literature covering over 70 years. Now I will admit that my search may not be totally exhaustive nor do the resources I used contain all the possible reference material available. I do however, have a large amount of experience working with electronic databases and search vehicles and have been relatively successful in searching for, and finding, information with such media. (34) It is however, worthy to note that of the four items that could be used in Mr. Jones’ support, none were found in any addresses given by the leading authorities of the Church. If the Lectures were as critical as Mr. Jones insists, one might wonder why they were so infrequently used. The answer is found in an examination of the preface to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants and the minutes from the August 17, 1835 general assembly.

Mr. Jones insists “The language in the Preface, the minutes of the General Assembly (A-2) and these two title pages make it clear that the Lectures on Faith were canonized as the Doctrine of the Doctrine and Covenants” and also “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.” First of all, the reader may wish to review both the minutes of the General Assembly and the Preface to the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants without the underlining Mr. Jones provides in the appendix of his paper. I have provided both in this paper as appendix A and B respectively. A review of both leads to the first question. Where is it stated in these documents that either the Lectures or the revelations were canonized? While it is true that the minutes of the General Assembly do refer to the book as the Doctrine and Covenants, no where is it stated that the inclusion of the Lectures was a canonization. Do not misunderstand. I believe the revelations were and are canonized, but to apply this canonization to the Lectures is Mr. Jones doing, not that of the preface nor the minutes. In my view he is declaring a canonization that just does not exist. In the minutes there is only one spot the lectures are even mentioned alone:

Elder John Smith, taking the lead of the High Council in Kirtland, bore record that the revelations in said book were true, and that the lectures were judiciously arranged and compiled, and were profitable for doctrine. Whereupon, the High Council of Kirtland accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith by a unanimous vote. (See appendix A)

Note that John Smith emphasized that the revelations were true. He downplays the Lectures by separating them out from the revelations and comments that they “were profitable for doctrine” with which I do not disagree. It is the interpretation by Mr. Jones of that doctrine and the weight he argues it carries as compared to the expanding knowledge of God revealed to the Church, particularly items that came later as revelations that were canonized, with which I disagree. John Smith does not however give the lectures the total endorsement of truth that he gives the revelations. The next paragraph of the minutes lends further support to the fact that the council did not give the same weight to the Lectures as the revelations when we read:

Elder Levi Jackman, taking the lead for the High Council of the church in Missouri, bore testimony that the revelations in said book were true, and the said High Council of Missouri accepted and acknowledged them as the doctrine and covenants of their faith, by a unanimous vote. (See appendix A)

Levi Jackman ignores the lectures entirely in his comments. Could we suppose that Smith’s semi-endorsement of the Lectures and Jackman’s total lack of mentioning them as something less than enthusiasm for the Lectures? I believe the answer is yes. Additionally, these men were the spokesmen for the High Councils of Kirtland and Missouri respectively. Both these bodies held significant leadership authority in the Church at this time. Remember that it was the Kirtland High Council that sponsores the initial committee that organized and compiled the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. It is further interesting to note that the testimony of the Quorum Twelve Apostles is also silent regarding the Lectures on Faith. In fact they mention the revelations exclusively by referring to them by their prior title the Book of Commandments:

"The testimony of the Witnesses to the Book of the Lord's Commandments, which commandments He gave to His Church through Joseph Smith, Jun., who was appointed by the voice of the Church, for this purpose.

We therefore feel willing to bear testimony to all the world of mankind, to every creature upon the face of all the earth, that the Lord has borne record to our souls, through the Holy Ghost shed earth upon us, that these Commandments were given by inspiration of God, and are profitable for all men, and are verily true. We give this testimony unto the world, the Lord being our helper; and it is through the grace of God the Father, and His Son Jesus Christ, that we are permitted to have this privilege of bearing this testimony unto the world, in the which we rejoice exceedingly, praying the Lord always that the children of men may be profited thereby.” (See appendix A)

From this testimony we can see that there is little doubt that the leading councils of the Church were not totally enthusiastic in their endorsement of the Lectures. If the Lecture were actually scripture or on par with the revelations why did only one of the three leading councils of the Church mention them, and then in an endorsement that was less than that given to the revelations? The answer is that the lectures were exactly what the committee stated when removing them from the Doctrine and Covenants in 1921: “These lessons were prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-1835; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being other than theological lectures or lessons.” Joseph Fielding Smith further emphasizes this point and also makes a corollary point by tying the status of the Lectures to the same non-revelatory status of the article on marriage and the article on laws and governments:

At this conference it was decided to include in this publication of the Doctrine and Covenants seven Lectures on Faith. These lectures had been given before the schools of the elders in Kirtland during the years 1834-1835. In accepting these seven Lectures on Faith, it was made very clear to that conference that they were not received on a parallel with the revelations, but were accepted as helps in the study of the doctrines of the Church, and so they were added to the Doctrine and Covenants with that understanding.

At this conference two other articles were also received, read, approved, and ordered to be printed in the Doctrine and Covenants, one on marriage and the other on laws and government. These two articles appeared in each edition of the Doctrine and Covenants from the first edition in 1835, until 1876. We should remember that these Lectures on Faith were not revelations and were not considered so in the beginning. These two articles, one on marriage, and the other on laws and government, were not revelations. I want to impress this upon you, because this question comes up constantly; especially is it brought up by members of the "Reorganized" Church, who accuse us of taking a revelation out of the Doctrine and Covenants. This article on marriage was not a revelation and I want you never to forget it.

OLIVER COWDERY PREPARED ARTICLE ON MARRIAGE. I hold in my hand a copy of the Doctrine and Covenants published in 1869, one of the last before that article was taken out. Do not forget what I am going to tell you, that at this conference held on August 17, 1835, Joseph Smith and Frederick G. Williams, one of the counselors in the Presidency, were not present; they were in Michigan. That is a matter of recorded history. We know where they were because we have it in the documentary history of the Church.

So this article on marriage and this article on laws and government in general were written by Oliver Cowdery in the absence of the Prophet Joseph Smith, and the Prophet knew nothing of the action that was taken ordering them printed with the revelations. These were not revelations, never were so considered, were ordered printed in the absence of Joseph Smith, and when Joseph Smith returned from Michigan and learned what was done—I am informed by my father, who got this information from Orson Pratt—the Prophet was very much troubled. Orson Pratt and Joseph F. Smith, my father, were missionary companions; they traveled together, and my father learned a great many things from Orson Pratt of these early days. When the Prophet came back from Michigan, he learned of the order made by the conference of the Church and let it go through. Now the Prophet did know something about these Lectures on Faith, because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published, but these two other articles, he had nothing to do with them. (35)

We can see from the above that the process of compiling and accepting the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants was very different from the process of doctrinal development and canonization that later developed in the Church and is used today. Noel Reynolds points out:

The year 1835 was a time in which Joseph's leadership was under persistent attack; within a few years, all the key actors in the publication of the lectures turned against Joseph and left the Church. According to Brigham Young, Oliver Cowdery included the "Article on Marriage" in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants in spite of Joseph's repeated requests that it not be included. Thus how can we conclude any particular level of enthusiasm for the lectures on Joseph's part merely from their inclusion and his signature on the prefatory letter? Perhaps Joseph merely felt bound by the vote of the 1835 conference, which was presided over by Rigdon and Cowdery in his absence. (36)

Reynolds additionally points out when commenting on the question of authorship of the Lectures:

There might be stronger warrant for attributing the Lectures to Joseph Smith if we could reasonably project present day Church decision-making processes back to 1834–35 without anachronism. It is not likely that counselors in a contemporary First Presidency would ever try to impose statements of doctrine on a president, if he did not fully endorse them. But the Church has matured a great deal since 1835. The internal dynamics of first presidencies today exhibit a unity of purpose and approach and a deference for the president that Joseph Smith may have dreamed of, but appears never to have enjoyed. This was a period of time in which Joseph's pre-eminent role as president was not as clearly established in day-to-day relationships as it was in the revelations (see Doctrine and Covenants 28:1-7, 30:7, and 43:1-7). And the key actors in this particular episode all turned against Joseph openly and left the Church within a few years. (37)

If the above excerpts from the conference minutes and additional analysis does not sufficiently demonstrate the non canonized status of the Lectures to the mind of an objective reader, keep in mind that the remaining endorsements of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants by Leonard Rich of the Seventy, Bishop Newel K. Whitney, Bishop John Corril, and the respective presidents of the Elders, Priest, Teachers and Deacons quorums make no separate mention of the Lectures but refer only to “the book.”

The preface of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants also makes no mention of canonizing the Lectures. The reference to the lectures from the preface states:

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 in the following work. (See appendix B)

This excerpt just does not give the weight to the lectures that Mr. Jones thinks it does. It does tell us the ideas contained in the Lectures are important. Again with this I do not disagree. I have studied the Lectures on faith and found that I agree with most if not all of what they teach. Obviously, as I stated a few paragraphs above, I may interpret them differently than Mr. Jones does and I believe his interpretation to be in error. Additionally, I have already discussed above how some of his interpretation is in error and how the Lectures are not in conflict with the additional knowledge revealed to Joseph Smith. As I move beyond the issue of canonization we will see further errors in Mr. Jones exegesis of the Lectures and how the lectures actually do fit into LDS doctrine. Yes the Lectures do embrace important doctrine including the doctrine of salvation. However, embracing important doctrine does not scripture the Lectures make.

One last point on the preface. The 1835 Doctrine and Covenants was compiled for a number of reasons, one of which was to respond to three distinct criticisms of the LDS Church. We read from the preface:

The Church, viewing this subject to be of importance, appointed, through their servants and delegates the High Council, your servants to select and compile this work. Several reasons might be adduced in favor of this move of the Council, but we only add a few words. They knew that the Church was evil spoken of in many places, its faith and belief misrepresented, and the way of truth thus subverted. By some it was represented as disbelieving the Bible; by others as being an enemy to all good order and uprightness; and by others as being injurious to the peace of all governments, civil and political. (See appendix B)

The three criticisms then that the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants responded to were:

1. The Church disbelieved the Bible. Answered by including the Lectures on faith.

2. The Church was an enemy to good order and uprightness. Answered by the article on marriage.

3. The church was injurious to the peace of all governments. Answered by article on laws and governments.

It is clear then that the purpose for inclusion of various items in the 1835 publication was motivated by a very different reason than canonizing the respective documents including the Lectures. Mr. Jones is simply imposing a status on documents that never were there in order to bolster his argument of a major change by Joseph Smith in his view of the Godhead. The above discussion and analysis of the source documents Mr. Jones relies on to make his case, as well as an analysis of other sources of information and commentary on the subject, demonstrates that the Lectures never did enjoy a status that Mr. Jones claims they did.

Jones:

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 Doctrine & Covenants, as noted above.

Mr. Jones is repeating his canonization claim. But where is his further evidence other than “as noted above?” I have more than demonstrated that his exegesis of the sources he relies upon to conclude canonization of the Lectures is faulty. As for the comments that the lectures were not given as revelations, but as doctrine my first reaction is what is the point? It seems that Mr. Jones feels that because the preface to the 1989 Doctrine and Covenants (as well as the 1993 preface) only state that the Lectures were removed because they were not given as revelations somehow strengthens his position. Did Mr. Jones quickly forget that the preface in the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants when the Lectures were first removed was much stronger in its language? Let me repeat the point made in the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants:

This demonstrates that the 1921 committee that removed the Lectures from the Doctrine and Covenants not only insisted that the Lectures were not revelations, but that they held a status below that of the doctrine that was canonized through and within the revelations. Keep in mind, as pointed out previously, the Lecture’s doctrines and teachings were taken from the revelations found in the Bible, Book of Mormon and the predecessor to the Doctrine and Covenants, The Book of Commandments. The fact that something is an expose of, on or about doctrine does not make it scripture. For the Lectures, it is clear that the historical evidence bears this out. Rather then repeat my whole position again I recommend that anyone who doubts the evidence weighs in favor of the conclusion reached in 1921 by Joseph Fielding Smith, John A. Widstoe, and James E. Talmedge review the preceding pages above on this very topic.

Jones:

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.

What one believes is implied can be doubted by another. Of course there is doctrine in the Doctrine and Covenants. It is found within the revelations. This does not mean a doctrinal treatise taken from the revelations is scripture along with the revelations. Also, provision of the definition of the word “doctrine” proves absolutely nothing. The standard for the determination of the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has already been provided in this paper. The Lectures did not fall into the prescribed procedure.

Jones:

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 other sections which are not revelations, see section 34
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.

There is no question that..."additional revelations or other matters of record have been added, as received and accepted by competent assemblies or conferences of the Church." There are additional items in the Doctrine and Covenants that could be classified as “other matters of record.” The bearing of such items on the status of the Lectures on Faith frankly alludes me. The fact is that the Development of the lectures and their inclusion in the Doctrine and Covenants was far different than that of the revelations, Section 34 and 135 and other items such as the official declarations. If the argument I have made above is not sufficient to demonstrate this let me point out one more thing before moving away from this issue. I have already pointed out that the preface of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants mentions three criticisms that it is apparent the publication was attempting to respond to. The Lectures obviously are in response to that criticism. According to Noel Reynolds: “ while the Lectures include 136 Bible quotations plus 11 JST quotations, the revelations to Joseph are cited only twice (Lecture 7), and the book of Mormon is referred to only three times, all as part of the answer to question 11 which was appended to Lecture 1. The predominant stance of the Lectures is to derive its premise from the Bible alone, and to ignore the vast treasury of knowledge made available through Joseph Smith’s revelations.” (38) Reynolds further points out:

Similarly, viewing the Lectures as a response to criticism might help to explain their atypical style. There is evidence that some of the early brethren were embarrassed with Joseph's lack of education and the simple language of his inspired writings. (Note 30: Both Rigdon and Cowdery were among the ten elders at the November 1, 1831 conference in Hiram Ohio where concerns were expressed over “the seemingly uneducated language found in the revelations then ready for printing.” Lyndon W. Cook, The Revelations of the Prophet Joseph Smith (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1985), 107. Section 67 was given in direct response to those concerns (See verses 5–9).) The idea of taking a leading role in the school for the elders or the publication process might come easily to Oliver Cowdery, Frederick G. Williams, W. W. Phelps, and Sidney Rigdon, all of whom boasted some education and had at some point earned their living as school teachers or publishers. Furthermore, it may not be too much to see the expansions of the 1835 edition as a means of balancing Joseph's revelations with contributions from others--the two doctrinal statements from Cowdery and Phelps, and the theological lectures from Rigdon.

It is not without interest that when Rigdon left Nauvoo in 1844 and organized his own Church of Christ in Pittsburgh, he started up a paper (another Messenger and Advocate) and republished the seven Kirtland lectures in a monthly series between October 1845 and March 1846. (Note 31: Sidney Rigdon ed. "Faith," Messenger and Advocate (Pittsburgh, PA): (15 October 1845) 1:360, 364–66; (November 1845) 1:385–89; (December 1845) 1:405–07; (January 1846) 1:422–24; (February 1846) 1:443–45; (March 1846) 2:449–52.) This action clearly indicates that Rigdon placed high value on the Lectures, quite plausibly due to his own primary role as author or chief author among others. (39)

To reiterate a point made above, it is clear that while Joseph Smith was alive he never enjoyed the status that the revelations indicated he should. (40) Doctrinal impositions upon the first Presidency of the Church, let alone the President of the Church would be unheard of today. Any casual student of the history of the LDS Church is aware of the challenges Joseph Smith faced both externally and internally. The years of 1835 and shortly thereafter were extremely tumultuous. That the lectures came form this period and were included in a book by methods that were unorthodox to say the least adds further weight to the idea that they were not scriptural.

Jones:

Unlike the other non-revelatory sections, however, the knowledge contained in
the Lectures on Faith was held to be necessary for salvation (Lecture 3:2-4,
1835 D&C, p.36; A-4). 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?

Keep in mind that the doctrines in the lectures were taken from the revelations and primarily from the Bible. Since the Lectures were not scripture they were not omitted from scripture. However, the scriptures cited in the Lectures are still intact in the Bible and other canonized scripture used by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So the point Mr. Jones attempts to make regarding removing doctrine necessary for salvation is meaningless. The doctrine is still there, found in the scriptures and, as pointed out early in this paper, the verses Mr. Jones claims Joseph Smith changed his position on are still there. Additionally, Mr. Jones provides no evidence that Joseph Smith or any of his successors held that an understanding of God stopped being essential to salvation. I already demonstrated that Joseph Smith emphasized this fact in the opening of the King Follet Discourse. Let me repeat it and reinforce it here:

Joseph Smith further stated “My first object is to find out the character of the only wise and true God, and what kind of a being he is…”(41). In 1844 Joseph Smith believed that a knowledge of the nature, character and attributes of God were as essential to salvation as he did in 1835. I find nothing that indicates he believed differently. That his understanding of God had progressed through, we believe, divine revelation, is beyond question. That the added light and knowledge enhanced the understanding of verses cited in the Lectures is also clear.

Jones

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. (Lecture 3:2-4, 7-9,19, 1835 D&C, pp. 36, 37, 39; A-4)

My first thought in response to this question and answer is so what? If I write a treatise on a subject taken from the scriptures and publish my work it stands a good chance to contain items that are essential for salvation. If a general authority of the LDS church writes a similar work the same may be the case. If my work or that by a general authority ceases to be available because it is out of print, this does not mean that the ideas presented in the books are not still true and not necessary for salvation. This is because the main source, the scriptures, are still intact and contain the ideas that my have been written about in the book. The fact that a work contains ideas that are essential for salvation does not make the book scripture.

The point Mr. Jones has been trying to make is that the Lectures were scripture. Now he seems to back peddle a bit and take a position that even if they were not on par with the revelations they still contain critical doctrine. Now I have read and studied the Lectures on Faith. I agree with Mr. Jones that they do contain essential doctrine. I believe the doctrine contained there in and the verses from the Bible and other scripture the Lectures quote. Mr. Jones may be surprised that most Latter-day Saint Christians would also agree with the doctrines in the Lectures. Yet, the lectures are not scripture. Was this not the point Mr. Jones was attempting to make? Have I not spent the majority of this paper up to this point discussing this very issue? I repeat that though the lectures may be profitable for doctrine removing them from joint publication with the Doctrine and Covenants is not a deletion of doctrine. The revelations from which the doctrine was taken are still there. The Lectures on Faith are still available for use and study. In fact in my research for this paper I have found that the use of the Lectures in study, writings and talks has been far more frequent since 1921 then prior to. So the idea Mr. Jones seems to be presenting in the question and answer above is that removal of the Lectures has caused a removal and disbelief of doctrine that was once essential. This logic is flawed. The doctrine is there and believed. Mr. Jones may view the ideas presented in the Lectures as fundamentally protestant and classical in their teaching about God. Latter-day Saints view the ideas presented in the Lectures differently. There is much to indicate that even in 1835 the ideas presented in the Lectures were not viewed as essentially protestant. This will be demonstrated.

Shortly in his paper, Mr. Jones will begin to discuss in greater detail the items in the Lectures he feels are essentially orthodox Trinitarian teachings. Some of this he has mentioned early in his paper and some I have already addressed. This line of debate will continue as this paper moves forward. Perhaps it is a bit redundant to mention this prior to Mr. Jones arguments. However, it is worth addressing this a bit at this point in order to lay the groundwork for my responses.

In his paper that is part of the Dahl and Tate work Robert Millet opens up his essay on the Fifth Lecture on Faith with the following item from Bruce R. McConkie:

Using the holy scriptures as the recorded source of the knowledge of God, knowing what the Lord has revealed to them of old in visions and by the power of the Spirit, and writing as guided by that same Spirit, Joseph Smith and the early brethren of this dispensation prepared a creedal statement on the Godhead. It is without question the most excellent summary of revealed and eternal truth relative to the Godhead that is now extant in mortal language. In it is set forth the mystery of Godliness; that is, it sets forth the personalities, missions, and ministries of those holy beings who comprise the supreme presidency of the universe. To spiritually illiterate persons, it may seem hard and confusing; to those whose souls are aflame with heavenly light, it is a nearly perfect summary of those things which must be believed to gain salvation. (42)

When I first read this quote by Elder McConkie I was amazed. How, I wondered, could an individual whose beliefs about the nature of God are fundamentally orthodox in every sense of the LDS ideas and beliefs about God call Lecture Five “…the most excellent summary of revealed and eternal truth relative to the Godhead that is now extant in mortal language,” when at the same time critics of the LDS Church have used the same lecture in attempting to make their case that Joseph Smith changed his teachings about God? I can only conclude that the critics miss the mark when they read the Lectures and have not studied them in their fullness and in context with the scriptures. They can only seem to apply their classical metaphysical concept of God to the doctrine in the Lectures. When Latter-day Saints discard the taint of the extra Biblical creeds in their understanding of the Lectures the critics cry foul. In fact I have come to agree with Robert Millet that:

After many years of concentrated study of the Lectures on Faith, and particularly Lecture 5, I have come to appreciate Elder McConkie's assessment; I believe the doctrines taught therein to be true and the concepts presented—though difficult and in some cases seemingly at odds with more traditional discussions of God and the Godhead—to be deep, penetrating, and, when fully grasped, soul inspiring. I believe them to be in harmony with other doctrines found in the standard works and the teachings of living apostles and prophets. (43)

As for the claims that the Lectures are more protestant and classical in nature Robert Millet makes this point:

Secondly, a careful study of all of the lectures reveals a profoundly deep concept of God. These teachings relative to God—despite some claims to the contrary—are neither primitive nor Protestant. We are made privy to a divine Being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent: he has all power, all knowledge, and is, by the power of his Spirit, everywhere present. At the same time, we are given insights into a Being who can be approached, a God who communicates freely with his people and reveals himself to those who, like Enoch, the brother of Jared, and Moses, seek after him with diligence and faithfulness (see LF 2:55). Most profoundly, we come face to face with the reality later taught in the King Follett Sermon—that men and women can mature spiritually to the point where they can become even as their exalted Sire (see LF 5:2-3; 7:8-9, 16). As indicated, these lectures are not primitive: they contain doctrinal pronouncements and allusions which would normally be associated with the mature Joseph Smith in Nauvoo. These lectures are not Protestant: indeed, we learn of a truly infinite Being—a totally independent Being (see LF 2:2) who possesses every godly attribute in perfection (see LF 3:12-24; 4:3-16, 19; 5:1). But in no way do we encounter the utterly transcendent Deity of the creeds. God's infinity does not preclude either his immediacy or his intimacy. (44)

That the Lectures are not what the critics’ think, that is Protestant Orthodox Trinitarianism, will be further demonstrated.

Jones:

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'" (D.S.3, vol.
2, p. 301; A-2)

There has been much scholastic work regarding the authorship of the Lectures since Joseph F. Smith made the statement Mr. Jones quotes above. That Joseph Fielding Smith, as well as Bruce R. McConkie (45) attributed the lectures to Joseph Smith is without question. In fact, in the preceding pages of this paper I provided a quote where Joseph Fielding Smith wrote in part “Now the Prophet did know something about these Lectures on Faith, because he helped to prepare them, and he helped also to revise these lectures before they were published.” However, this statement is not as strong as the quote Mr. Jones relies on above. Neither is authoritative in their conclusion that Joseph Smith wrote the lectures. The language of Joseph Fielding Smith is less than conclusive when he says "...the only evidence we have” and then goes on to cite the History of the Church where Joseph Smith discusses preparing the Lectures for publication. This seems like slim evidence for a decision as to who actually authored the lectures. Regarding this entry in the History of the Church Noel Reynolds writes:

The History of the Church appears to have a few helpful entries. But those who have relied on these to establish the Prophet’s responsibility for the Lectures have failed to notice that they are not drawn from original records such as the Prophet’s journals, but are interpolated by later secretaries. The only one of these which links Joseph Smith to the content of the Lectures is a January 1835 entry which reads as follows:

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, which the committee appointed last September were now compiling. (HC 2:180)

Such a statement falls far short of acceptable historical evidence that Joseph was responsible for their content or method. If Rigdon is the main author, how are we to know if Joseph's review was light or heavy? Those who have had the experience of revising materials written by a close associate know what a complex task that can be.

But the statement itself may not reflect Joseph Smith’s own memory at all. Joseph's original diaries and journals, which provided most of the source material from which the History of the Church was later compiled, have a fifteen-month gap which includes the period in which the lectures were delivered and prepared for publication. . Consequently, we can never know from Joseph’s own records whether or not he was heavily involved. The statement quoted above was introduced by Willard Richards eight years after the fact, as can be demonstrated by consulting Richards’s journal for August 28, 1843 and his notes indicating which pages of the manuscript history he worked on that day. It cannot be determined whether Richards’s insertion was suggested by Joseph Smith or by someone else. Joseph was in town on that day, but Richards seems to have been working largely alone during this period. In the face of these contingencies, the most reasonable assumption is that Richards did have some factual basis, now not available to us, for this January entry. But the language is unfortunately too vague to help us assess the level of Joseph Smith’s contribution to the publication of the lectures. (46)

Additionally, the quote by Joseph Fielding Smith I provided earlier in this paper seems to indicate that Joseph Smith acted in the role of an editor and in a concerted effort involving more than one individual. I believe my discussion in this paper regarding the historical development of the Lectures also bears this out. Keep in mind that a committee of four individuals was given responsibility for the development of the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Other than the items on marriage and governments the Prophet had already received the revelations included in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Not so with the Lectures on Faith. They were first delivered verbally in the School of the Elders by whom we do not know. From this presentation they were developed for written publication. It also appears that the written Lectures do not include all of what was taught about faith at the School of the Elders. (47)

It is obvious that the process of developing and compiling the Lectures was very different from that of the revelations. It seems that the approach was more one of committee than divine revelation. Additionally, the language and style used in the Lectures is very different than that of the revelations. I have already pointed out above that the Lectures were written in response to criticism of the Church and that it is fairly clear that Rigdon, and possibly Cowdry, were looking for more sophistication in the style of the written publications produced by the Church. Sidney Rigdon’s style and influence are all through the Lectures. Further, John A. Widstoe was persuaded that Sidney Rigdon as well as others were primarily responsible for the Lectures. (48) Three independent authorship studies also attribute the Lectures primarily to Sidney Rigdon. (49) Noel Reynolds further remarks:

The formal authorship studies that have been conducted on the Lectures on Faith all favor Sidney Rigdon as author or principal author in a group effort. When considered individually, Lecture 5 was consistently problematic and was linked tentatively to W. W. Phelps, Parley P. Pratt, or Joseph Smith. This uncertainty is to be expected because the text of Lecture 5 is so much smaller than any of the other six and provides little data for analysis. While these studies each have their own limitations, and none should be relied on alone for strong conclusions, the fact that three different studies using completely different assumptions and approaches reached the same general conclusion, does provide support for the Rigdon thesis. Furthermore, the historical and circumstantial evidence leans the same way. (50)

Obviously the issue of the authorship of the Lectures is not conclusive. It is doubtful that we will ever know for certain who the writers were. However, Mr. Jones has failed to demonstrate that Joseph Smith was the primary author. In his question and answer session he lays the authorship of the Lectures squarely at Joseph Smiths feet while relying on only one single reference. As I have demonstrated, the evidence weighs strongly against Mr. Jones conclusions.

Jones:

QUESTION #6:
Aren't you just splitting doctrinal hairs? What difference does it make
anyway?

It is highly doubtful if anyone of intelligence would ask this. It seems that Mr. Jones uses this to make his questioner look as if they are suffering defeat and starting to grasp at straws. It is seems its purpose is to take the reader down the path of defeat where none really exists and to lead them into a rehash of items Mr. Jones has already said.

Jones

Answer:
Salvation depends on our knowledge of God!

Of course it does. Where has anyone asserted differently? Where did Joseph Smith say salvation does not depend on our knowledge of God?

Jones:

This is not a debatable issue. Let's not forget that, as we saw earlier on
page 36 of the 1835 D&C (A-4), it is necessary, in order to exercise faith in
God unto life and salvation, that we have "a correct idea of [God's]
character, perfection and attributes."

Of course. And let’s not forget that Joseph Smith in the King Follet discourse still held that a knowledge of God and his characters and attributes is critical. For the third time, I repeat what he said:

Jones:

And there's much more to this than the one attribute we already discussed.
Let's highlight a few more. At the bottom of page 36 we read that without the
revelations "no man by searching could find out God." And on the adjacent
page, 37, it says we are going to examine the character of God from those
revelations. Three quarters of the way down the same page is the revelation
we already looked at, Psalm 90:2-JST, which says that God is God, "from
everlasting to everlasting". In other words, from eternity. God has always
been what he is today!

Frankly this section of Mr. Jones paper confuses me. What is the point? Perhaps he is attempting to make a bridge from the historical issues surrounding the Lectures back to the doctrinal issues he has a problem with. Perhaps he was looking for filler. I am not sure. Of course no man can find out about God without the revelations. And what revelations is Mr. Jones looking to? Does it include only the Bible? Does it include the Book of Mormon? Does it include the additional light and knowledge God continued to reveal to Joseph Smith after 1835? In the Book of Mormon we read:

Behold, great and marvelous are the works of the Lord. How unsearchable are the depths of the mysteries of him; and it is impossible that man should find out all his ways. And no man knoweth of his ways save it be revealed unto him; wherefore, brethren, despise not the revelations of God (Jacob 4:8)

The difference between the LDS view and the view of Mr. Jones is that Latter-day Saint Christians view the revelations as continuing and open. Mr. Jones view is that the canon is closed with the Bible. Mr. Jones sees change, we see new light and knowledge. As for God being God from all eternity from Psalm 90:2, I have addressed this sufficiently in the preceding pages and Mr. Jones assertion that this verse means “In other words, from eternity. God has always been what he is today!” has also been shown to have other plausible interpretations that differ from the metaphysical mindset of the classic theist.

Jones:

God is not a man!
The next page, 38, quotes Numbers 23:19-JST, "God is not a man..."

Latter-day Saint Christians do not view God as a man in the way in the way Mr. Jones infers by his use of this verse. The passage really has no significance on this discussion except to respond to Mr. Jones misuse of it to make his case. Of course God is not a man in the way we are currently men. This is not what Joseph Smith meant when he talked about God once being a man and his status as God now. God is a glorified exalted man that possesses all the attributes and powers the revealed word of God tells us about him. There is no indication that Joseph Smith believed any differently and that his views expressed in the King Follett discourse make God a man currently like we are. I have discussed this at length in the preceding pages. This verse, as well as similar verses in the Bible, are contrasting the imperfections of man as we are now to the glorious perfect God we worship. For example, 1 Samual 15:29 says “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor repent: for he is not a man that he should repent.” This passage like, the one from Numbers 23:19, illustrates the differences between man and God now.

Additionally the way Mr. Jones uses this verse in order to thwart LDS teachings poses problems for evangelicals as well. We read in 1 Timothy: 5 “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” If Christ is fully God and fully man then Christ is God and man at the same time. Applying the logic Mr. Jones employs in his use of Numbers 23:19 to Jesus would make Jesus not God since God is not a man. Obviously we know Jesus is and was fully God and man. Therefore, the interpretation of Numbers 23:19 along with its use in the Lectures does not mean what Mr. Jones implies when he insists that Joseph Smith’s teachings about God changed.

Moving forward, it seems that we also must apply the same reasoning to The Father when we read in Hebrews 1:1-5:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

We learn more about God the Father by what Jesus is. Jesus is the express image of his Father. Jesus had a mortal tabernacle. He was resurrected with that mortal tabernacle and took it with him into the heavens. Jesus is fully God and glorified man. Based on this logic and applying the scripture above it seems that the Father is also a glorified, exalted man. Accordingly the use of “God is not a man” to show that the LDS view of God changed, or is not in agreement with the verse, is really rather specious. Mr. Jones may wish to apply metaphysical restraints on his interpretation of Hebrew 1:1-5, but the scripture says what it says. Later Mr. Jones will quote Joseph Smith regarding the scriptures where he said “..taking it for granted that the scriptures say what they mean, and mean what they say…” (51) in order to illustrate that he believes Joseph Smith and Latter-day Saint Christians do not do exactly that. I suggest he consider the application of the instruction himself particularly regarding the above passages.

Jones:

Question #7:
But doesn't it also say,"...that he should lie?"
Answer:
How does the phrase, "that he should lie", take anything away from the
statement that "God is not a man?" The context of the statement is a
discussion of six reasons why we are able to take God at his word. It's true
that the main idea is that God will not lie to us. But it's equally obvious
that the phrase, "God is not a man," is given as a reason why we can trust
his word. This is further expanded on page 40 (A-5):
"But having the idea that he is not a man that he can lie, it gives power to
the minds of men to exercise faith in him".

First I doubt any Latter-day Saint Christian would ask this question in this way. As discussed, above the correct application of the verses about God not being a man are in harmony with the LDS view of God both in 1835, 1844 and now. The point of the verse is that God is unlike sinful men and thus does not lie. We can trust him. Nothing in our teachings infers that we do not take God for his word or that Joseph Smith’s 1844 teachings change that view.

Jones:

Let's take a break from answering questions and let me ask:
How about you? Do you believe in a god who was once a man who made mistakes,
or who lied to us about who he is and later changed his mind, or who did not
have the power to protect his word from being corrupted by mere men?
God's word shall not pass away!

Honestly I found this and the following paragraphs rather silly, extremely polemical and bordering on hostility. I wondered what purpose they serve as far as getting the issue at hand. Never the less I will respond. No we do not believe in a God who lied or changed his mind. Where did Mr. Jones get this idea? These question seems to obfuscate the issue and put words into the readers mouth. Did Joseph Smith say that God lied or changed his mind about who he is? I have already illustrated above that the unchanging nature found of God in the scriptures and the Lectures refers primarily to his attributes and characteristics. I have also proposed that the views found in the King Follet discourse about God being a man can be understood about God the Father in the same way we understand Jesus Christ being a man. Does Mr. Jones believe that God was a man in the form of Jesus Christ? He proposes as much below. Did not God then become a man in the form of Jesus, at least according to classical theism? Then even in classical theism God was once a man at least to a certain extent and indeed He changed. Richard Hopkins enlightens us further:

Christ experienced another very significant change when he was born of Mary. He changed his form from that of a spirit to that of a physical being, a change that involved entry into a fallen state (Phil. 2:7-8). Subsequently, He underwent yet another change of form, from that of a man subject to death to that of an eternal, resurrected being (Luke 24:36-43).

The New Testament is filled with references to Christ’s birth, death and resurrection. Yet, these physiological changes are never mentioned in connection with biblical declarations that God is immutable. Obviously, biblical immutability is not about the form of God’s body. Again it appears that the attribute of immutability addresses only the steadfast nature of God’s personality and character for righteousness. (52)

This is exactly the point I have made above. The language of the Lectures and the scriptures they cite about God’s unchanging nature refer primarily to the character of God. They are basically silent as to whether God’s bodily form ever changed. Since we understand the Father by the Son it is not out of the question to understand that the Father underwent a similar “kenosis,”(53) like Christ did. This in no wise denies God’s immutability of character and attributes nor does it cause the LDS view of God to be that of a God who lied or made mistakes.

As for Mr. Jones statement “who did not have the power to protect his word from being corrupted by mere men? God's word shall not pass away!” no one is asserting that God’s word passed away. And regarding the comment about the corruption of the Biblical text, (I assume Mr. Jones means the Bible when he says God’s word) it really has no bearing in the discussion at hand so I will pass commenting on it lest this already long paper become even longer.

Jones:

Or do you believe in the all-powerful God of the Bible who has always been
God, who keeps his promises, who appeared in a body (as Jesus) and promised
emphatically, "heaven and earth must pass away, but one jot or one tittle shall in no wise
pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matthew 5:18-JST)
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."
(Matthew 24:35-KJV)

Again the comments here have little to do with the discussion at hand. I guess the only way to respond is directly. Yes we do believe in the all-powerful God of the Bible. It is just that we do not believe in the God of the extra biblical creeds. It is that simple. Of course Latter-day Saint Christians would contend that the God of the classical theist is not the God of the Bible at least to the extent of the ideas about his nature that are found in the extra biblical creeds. We also would contend that our understanding of The Father, Son and Holy Ghost is biblical.

As for the scriptures cited above let me first point out a clerical error. The site should be Matthew 5:20-JST rather than verse 18. Now what relevance does this verse have on the discussion? Jesus was referring to the fulfillment of the Law of Moses. In the previous verse he tells us that he has not come to destroy what the prophets have taught or to destroy the law. He then tells that he fulfilled the law. Latter-day Saints believe this and we also believe that all of the words of God and Christ will not pass away but will be fulfilled. I can only surmise that the reason Mr. Jones is bringing this up is to promote his biblical inerranist views and/or to plant the idea in the readers mind that Latter-day Saint question or do not believe that the words of God will be fulfilled. He is incorrect. How this ties into what he has written so far is beyond me.

So what is the point of the comments above? These topics are one of another paper. In fact whole books have been written on the subject. I would be happy to explore it further with Mr. Jones in another forum but again for sake of space and length of this paper I will stick to the subject.

Jones:

The same kinds of promises were made in LDS scripture:
"the decrees of God are unalterable" (Alma 41:8)
"Search these commandments, for they are true and faithful, and the
prophecies and promises which are in them shall all be fulfilled. What I the
Lord have spoken, I have spoken, and I excuse not myself;...my word shall not
pass away, but shall all be fulfilled, whether by mine own voice or by the
voice of my servants, it is the same."(D&C 1:37-38)
Based on what we have seen so far, did the LDS Prophets honor and help to
fulfill those promises? Or was scripture adjusted to permit a different
gospel?

I have already pointed out that we believe that all of the words of God will be fulfilled and of course uniquely LDS scripture emphasizes this point. Based on what I have written so far we can see that the LDS Prophets have honored and are fulfilling those promises and that the supposed changes to scripture were not changes at all. Also as pointed out, the later ideas about God that were revealed fit well into the idea of a continuing revelation of light and knowledge. We can also see that Mr. Jones is stuck in the mode of his evangelical perspective. The problem is that Mr. Jones rejects continuous revelation and considers the canon closed. However his logic is flawed even as it applies to the Bible. Keep in mind that the verses that Mr. Jones quotes from the Bible in order to prove a closed canon were written before there was a canon! Therefore, we are left to ask to which words do they apply? Is there a problem if the final canon excluded words that were written and were considered God’s words? Is there a problem if some of what was included in the canon was altered in order to fit the prevailing “orthodoxy” that was the “winner” among conflicting sects of Christianity in the first few hundred years after Christ? (54)

The scriptures Mr. Jones quote in no wise infer that God will not reveal more to us, including more about himself. Now Mr. Jones may argue that all that was revealed in the New Testament fit in line with the Old Testament. Again that is a topic for another paper. However, a follower of Judaism my have a bit of trouble agreeing that the law was fulfilled in Jesus. They also might view the statement that the law was fulfilled in Jesus as a bit radical and outside of the teachings they viewed as scripture. I have already demonstrated above when quoting Wade Englund, that there are many rites, covenants and laws that were given in Old Testament times that were considered eternal or everlasting that were done away with in the New. Additionally the concept of God was radically changed in the revelation of Jesus Christ even to the point that Jews, Greeks and Romans persecuted early Christians for being atheists. (55) In fact that persecution was a catalyst for the early Christian apologists to change the clear teachings of the Bible about God, Christ and the Holy Ghost being separate and distinct into the Greek metaphysical God of the extra biblical creeds.

Jones:

Before we answer more questions, let's examine a little more of Joseph's 1835
gospel.
God has always been God!
Back to the 1835 D&C, p.38 (A-4), at the bottom of the page it declares that,
what God is, he has always been, "from everlasting", and always will be, "to
everlasting." (See also D&C 20:17, 28; Moroni 8:18; Mormon 9:9, all of which
still reflect the 1835 theology)

I have already addressed this above and I know it seems like instant replay, but I will attempt again to demonstrate how Mr. Jones is using an ellipses in such a way that it distort what the lecture is saying. The excerpt is from Lecture Third Item 15. Let’s use a side by side comparison similar to above.

JONES QUOTE

ORIGINAL QUOTATION

from everlasting to everlasting

From Lecture Third:

12. From the foregoing testimonies we learn the following things respecting the character of God:

13. First, that he was God before the world was created, and the same God that he was after it was created.

14. Secondly, that he is merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness, and that he was so from everlasting, and will be to everlasting.

15. 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 for ever; and that his course is one eternal round, without variation.

16. Fourthly, that he is a God of truth and cannot lie.

17. Fifthly, that he is no respecter of persons: but in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness is accepted of him.

18. Sixthly, that he is love.

19. 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 greater than he who would thwart all his plans, and he, like the gods of the heathen, would be unable to fulfill 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.

Around the ellipses Mr. Jones applies his own interpretation of what the language from everlasting to everlasting means when he says, “it declares that, what God is, he has always been.” But is this passage really teaching that God has always been God in the metaphysical sense? Not really. It is stating that God’s characteristics are immutable and unchanging. Item 12 from Lecture Third introduces the topic as follows:

12. From the foregoing testimonies we learn the following things respecting the character of God:

It is clear that it is the characteristics of God that the next number of items will discuss. This I have previously pointed out. The passages following item 12 cover what characteristics have been learned:

1. God was God before the creation and is afterwards

2. The He is, always has been and always will be merciful, gracious, slow to anger, abundant in goodness

3. That He changes not nor does he vary

4. He does not lie

5. He is not a respecter of persons

6. He is love

Of course Latter-day Saints believe all of these things regarding God and the concepts taught in the other verses Mr. Jones references. For at least the second time I would propose that if there was really such a drastic change in LDS teaching about God as Mr. Jones suggests why didn’t Joseph Smith and his successors change these verses that Mr. Jones says “Still reflect the1835 theology.” It is because the major change is just not there and LDS still believe these verses about God.

The ideas about the immutability of God can be a bit confusing. Because of this it is worth discussing the concept. Richard Hopkins points out “While the Bible teaches that God does not change, it also contains indisputable evidence that He has changed in certain significant and fundamental ways. Careful analysis is necessary, therefore, to understand what it is about God that is unchangeable and what it is about Him that can and does change without violating the biblical attribute of immutability.” (56) Above I have listed various ways in which God does not change. As I have demonstrated, these primarily relate to the way God approaches mankind and focus on his benevolence and his kind and loving nature. Of course an understanding that God does not change in the way he treats men is essential for us lest we fear to put our trust in him. Hopkins further illustrates this.

The principle way in which God does not change, according to the scriptures, is in respect to His purposes or His word. The idea that is made clear in several passages dealing with his immutability is that God does not break his promises. Hebrews 6:17 (NASB) states, “In the same way God, desiring even more to show to the heirs of the promise the unchangeableness [KJV: immutability] of His purpose, interposed with an oath.” (See Book of Mormon, Alma 42:26 to the same effect.) Doctrine and Covenants 104:2 expresses this attribute of God as follows: “With promise immutable and unchangeable, that inasmuch as those whom I commanded were faithful they should be blessed with a multiplicity of blessings.”

This aspect of God’s immutability is also demonstrated in His Character for honesty. Paul wrote to Titus (Titus 1:2, NASB): “in the hope of eternal life, which God, who cannot lie, promised long ages ago.” See also Numbers 23:19; 1Samual 15:29, and Hebrews 6:18. It is also seen in His perfect justice (Gen. 18:25)…

The most explicit of the New Testament writers on the subject of God’s immutability was James, who wrote: “Every good thing bestowed and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shadow of turning.” (James 1:17, NASB, literal translation). Here James uses three Greek words to describe God’s immutability with precision. They are parallage, which means change or variation, particularly in one’s nature, and tropes aposkiasma. In the latter phrase aposkiasma refers to a shadow cast by variation, usually because of movement of heavenly bodies. The word tropes describes that movement, and means a turning, variation or change, and in some sense a darkening.

These words appear only once in the Bible-in James 1:17. One commentator who has carefully traced the use of these words through ancient literature concludes: “The meaning of the passage will then be ‘God is alike incapable of change in his nature (parallage) and incapable of being changed by the action of others (aposkiasma).

Thus, the Bible teaches that God is steadfast and faithful in carrying out His word. Indeed, biblical immutability could best be described as perfect steadfastness (Dan. 6:26, Heb. 6:18-19). Another synonym found in the scriptures is “constancy,” an attribute Men too are commanded to develop ( Cor. 15:58, Heb. 3:14, 2 Pet. 3:17).

God does not change His mind or the purposes, designs or plans He has announced. He is also immutable in the sense that He will not allow the improper influence of others to change His mind or shift His will in the slightest degree from righteousness. He may be relied upon always to behave consistently with His Godly character. (57)

The explanation above and my commentary about the verses in the Lectures make it clear that these verses are speaking of how God approaches man. They emphasize that it is His behavior and His promises that are sure. They do not, however, infer in any way that God has always been God or that he did not experience a mortality similar to that of his son Jesus Christ.

There are ways that the Bible illustrates that God has changed. I have already addressed the way Jesus changed and the problem caused by a strict view of God’s immutability in respect to God always having been God, or as far as his bodily form and status as God is concerned, in relation to verses such as Hebrews 13:8. I have further emphasized that the evangelical view of God manifesting himself in bodily form as the man Jesus complicates the issue of immutability as far as the physical unchanging nature of God is concerned, particularly in light of the doctrine of co-substantiality. Perhaps it is worth examining this further along with some other ways in which God has changed. I think that by so doing it will become clearer that “…the bible does not associate certain types of change with the attribute of immutability as it is possessed by God.” (58)

In his book “How Greek Philosophy Corrupted the Christian Concept of God” Richard Hopkins demonstrates a number of ways Christ has changed. As we discuss some of these items it is important to remember that we understand the Father by the Son. Keep in mind that Jesus told us he who has seen the Him has seen the Father (John 14:9) and he only did the things he somehow saw the Father do (John 5:19-20).

Hopkins points out that Proverbs 8:22 indicates that Jesus learned wisdom prior to his earthly probation. The translation of this verse found in the NASB version of the Old Testament reads “The Lord possessed me [Wisdom] at the beginning of His way, Before His works of old.” The bracketed word “wisdom” is from Hopkins. I asked Richard Hopkins about the insertion of the word wisdom. He replied, “The bracketed addition is my own. My intent was to give the context of the verse without having to quote the verses before it. When the passage says "me," it is referring to Wisdom, which is treated as a person and as the point of view reference in this section of the Psalm.” The idea the verse presents is that Christ, at some point prior to the creation, acquired wisdom. He “acquired the knowledge needed to assist His Father in the creation of this world.” (59) A similar concept is taught in verses from the New Testament. For example Luke 2:52 teaches us that Jesus increased in wisdom and stature. Hebrews 5:8 teaches us that Christ learned obedience. The Greek word for learned in Hebrews 5:8 is manthano. One meaning of the Greek word is “to increase one's knowledge, to be increased in knowledge.” These verses indicate some sort of change in a God that is considered immutable but do not discredit the verses that talk about God being unchanging. This strengthens the position that the verses that speak of God’s unchangeable nature are focused on his characteristics and way he approaches mankind.

Another clear change in Jesus is his change in bodily characteristics. I have already discussed this above so I will not reiterate it here other than to say this further backs up the idea that “… the attribute of immutability only addresses the steadfast nature of God’s personality and character for righteousness.” (60)

The next change Jesus experienced is the change in his title or position of Christ. Because Richard Hopkins thoroughly discusses this change I will rely on his material rather than paraphrase. Hopkins states:

The ultimate point of disagreement between Mormons and classical theists in regard to the attribute of immutability relates to the question of whether or not immutability refers to eternal progression. Is it possible for one who was not God to attain that position and still possess the attribute of immutability? Dr. Beckwith states the classical viewpoint on this question as follows: “God is unchanging (Mal. 3:6; Heb.6: 17; Isa. 46:10b) and has always existed as God throughout all eternity (Ps. 90:2; Isa. 40:28; 43:12b, 13; 57:15a; Rom 1:20a; 1Tim.1:17). There never was a time when God was not God.”

Is this an accurate statement of Biblical theology, as Dr. Beckwith implies through his citations of Biblical authority? Not at all. None of the passages he cites addresses the point he makes in his last sentence. Rather, the Bible tells of a very significant change that occurred in respect to Christ’s position as Eternal God. It has been mentioned before, but needs careful reexamination in regard to this issue. The change occurred in Concert with Christ’s incarnation and is described by Paul in his letter to the Philippians. Philippians 2:5-7 (NASB) reads:

Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.

It will be noted that this passage appears to have a very different meaning in the NASB than it does in the KJV. In this rare instance, the NASB is more accurate translation of the original Greek. The phrase “He existed in the form of God” means that Christ was a member of the Godhead. He held and exercised the office, position or authority of “Eternal God.” He had been acting as Creator and serving Man as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the great I AM (Exod. 3:13-14; John 8:56-57) since at least the beginning of this earth.

Note that the passage states unequivocally that He was in a position of “equality with God.” It does not say He was the same person as the Father. Equality is a very different concept than identity. It requires the existence of two entirely separate individuals for them to be equal. The passage teaches that Christ’s authority and position in the Godhead was one of complete equality with the Father.

Christ did not regard His position in the Godhead as something that should be held onto jealously, i.e., “grasped’ (verse 6). It was necessary at that time for Him to relinquish His duties as a member of the Godhead in order to complete His atoning mission on earth. The Greek word translated “grasped” in this passage is arpagmos, is very rare in secular Greek. It appears nowhere in the Septuagint and only once in the New Testament. Its classical meaning is “robbery,” and that is how it is translated in the KJV, but that does not clearly convey the meaning. The meaning intended here. Later church writers used the word to say, for example, that Peter regarded the death on the cross as “arpagmos,” by which they meant that he saw such a death as “a prize to be grasped eagerly.”

It is in this sense that it was used in this passage. Its use in the negative shows that God the Son, in coming into this world “in the likeness of men,” did not regard His exalted position in the Godhead as a prize to be clutched greedily, as a robber hordes his loot. Instead, He was willing to shed His office and responsibilities to take up His cross. The next verse expresses this concept by saying that He “emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant.” That is, He set aside His office or position as Eternal God along with certain of His attributes, like omnipresence, and took on the role of a slave or bond-servant during his mission on this earth. In fact, His willingness to do this, which the Father foreknew, is cited in Philippians 2:9, to be discussed more fully below, as one of the reasons he was exalted on the first place. (61)

As mentioned above and as is discussed briefly in footnote 53 the change we are discussing is what is called the kenosis. As mentioned Erickson stated “We conclude that it is the equality with God, not the form of God, of which Jesus emptied himself.” (62) Thus Christ stepped down from his position, on a temporary basis, as Eternal God. In essence he ceased to function in this position for a temporary period. “Of course, he did so without at any time relinquishing or divesting Himself of His divine nature, (Contrary to the doctrines of classical theism, the term “divine nature” should not be understood in any metaphysical sense.) as Professor Erickson correctly surmises, and that is the point of this discussion.” (63)

Viewing God’s immutability in light of the changes Christ has experienced and keeping in mind that the scriptures teach that Christ is same yesterday, today and forever, it can be seen that “Holding the position or office of God is not the point on which immutability is measured.” (64) The doctrine of immutability does not apply to being God at all times. Rather immutability deals with God’s nature regarding His character, his humility, love, and the way in which He deals with us, his children.

Jones:

Page 39 (A-4) reminds us that knowing these attributes is "essentially
necessary" for our salvation. Then, on the same page, we find another
reminder that God is "God over all from everlasting to everlasting." At the
bottom of the page, we find the caution that it is "equally necessary" that
we know that God does not change.

Once again much of this has been discussed in previous pages. However, because of the importance of the issues I will explore the issue further. Once again keep in mind that we understand the Father through and by Jesus Christ. Also, remember the discussion to follow, as does the discussion proceeding, causes difficult theological gymnastics when viewing God from the classical theistic viewpoint.

However, before I examine the main topic of this section let pause and point out a few items. Again, as I have already shown many times in this paper, Latter-day Saint Christians understand, believe and accept that knowing the attributes of God are essential for salvation. I have pointed out ad nauseaum that Latter-day Saints believe the scriptures about God, His nature and His immutability. I have shown that the LDS understanding of these passages have changed very little and only in the sense that additional light and knowledge has shed on the topic. I have shown that even with the one sentence Mr. Jones has latched on to out of the King Follet sermon that Joseph Smith’s understanding about the immutability, omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God changed very little and that even the teachings of the King Follet discourse have their fundamental base rooted in scriptures from the Old and New Testament. I have demonstrated that the concepts taught in the Lectures that Mr. Jones has presented as being radically changed can be understood and correlated with the idea that God may not have always been God in the classical theistic view, with a sound exegesis of Biblical scripture that demonstrates ways in which God in fact changed but still remained immutable. In other words I have responded, I believe successfully, to Mr. Jones claims of radical changes. I have shown, as I initially said I would, that the Lecturers were not considered scripture and that Joseph Smith was probably not the primary author of the Lectures. Also I have shown that Jones interpretation and application of the Lectures on LDS doctrine is in error and tainted by his classical theistic view and interpretation of the teachings found in the Lectures. In other words the Lectures do not teach what Mr. Jones proposes they do. Most of the remainder of this paper will focus on that point.

Moving forward we can see the fact that the Hebrew view of God being from everlasting to everlasting being is very different from the classical view and has been outlined above. Hopkins points out that:

Colossians 1:17 states that God “has existed prior to all things, and in Him all things endure together” (NASB, alternative translation). Notably the passage does not say He “has existed as God prior to all things.” This is more than a picky distinction or an inadvertent omission in the text; it is the constant testimony of the Bible. Dr. Beckwith’s added terminology, “as God” cannot properly be added to this passage, either by implication or assumption, without contradicting other specific passages in the Old and New Testaments. (65)

Hopkins goes on to discuss a number of Old Testament passages that classical theists quote in order to defend the position of God always being God. Among these are Psalm 41:13, Psalm 106:48 and Psalm 90:2 (Psalm 90:2 is discussed above in its context of the Lectures). As the statement by Barry Bickmore above points out, the Hebrew word for everlasting is olam. Hopkins points out that the word olam “…is intentionally uncertain as to its temporal duration. Literally it means a hidden period of time, ‘the beginning or end of which is either uncertain or undefined.’ The most that can be determined about its length as used in scripture is derived form the events specifically mentioned in them.” (66) Thus expressions in scripture that use the words everlasting and forever do not necessarily refer to an infinite time period. They cannot be relied upon to defend the classical theistic point of view on the eternal nature of God.

The idea of the obscurity about the amount of time God has been God found in the Bible can also be illustrated by reference to the exaltation of Jesus Christ. Once again I will rely on some of what Richard Hopkins has written on this subject:

Both the Old and the New Testaments testify that at some undesignated time in the far distant past Christ was “exalted” to his position in the Godhead. The statement is contained in Hebrews 1:8-9 (quoting Psalms 45:6-7) as follows (NASB):

But of the Son he says,

“Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever,

And the righteous scepter is the scepter of His kingdom.

Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness;

Therefore God, Thy God, hath anointed Thee

With the oil of gladness above thy companions.”

This event is confirmed in Philippians 2:9 (NASB), which reads: “Therefore also God highly exalted him [Christ], and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name.” The word translated “name” here is the Greek word onoma, which means “title.” Obviously, the title bestowed on Christ was that of “Eternal God” (cf., 1 Cor. 15:24-28).

Hebrews 1:9 refers to “the Son” as “God,” and says “Thy God,” referring to the Father (John 20:17), “anointed Thee…above Thy companions.” As noted above, this passage is quoted from Psalms 45:6-7. The Greek word translated “anointed” here is the equivalent of the Hebrew word used in Psalms 45:6-7. According to Gesenius, that word means “to anoint any one as a sacred rite in his inauguration and consecration to an office” (some emphasis in original).

Who then were Christ’s “companions” above whom He was “anointed” (Heb. 1:9) or “exalted” (Phil. 2:9)? The Greek word used in Hebrew, like the Hebrew word translated ‘fellows” in Psalms 45:7, implies a relationship of peers, companions or partners. The context in the Book of Hebrews is a scriptural demonstration that Christ is greater than the angels. This suggests that his “fellows” or “companions” over whom he was anointed were the angels. As will be seen in the next chapter, that conclusion is consistent with many other scriptural passages.

What is most certainly clear is that He did not hold the office and title of “God” before He was “anointed…above [His] companions” (Heb. 1:9, NASB). If Christ had been God, a member of the Godhead, before the exaltation or anointing described in the passages cited above, His companions, peers or partners would have been God the Father and God the Holy Ghost. That would mean that He was “anointed…above” the Father and the Holy Ghost! It is patent that Christ was never “exalted” or “anointed” above His Father (cf. 1Cor. 15:27-28). Thus, the Father could not have been one of Christ’s peers when He was exalted. Thus Christ was not “God,” a member of the Godhead, before the event described in Psalms 45:6-7, Hebrews 1:8-9 and Philippians 2:9. Before His exaltation, Christ’ peers were the angels, who were the righteous pre-existent spirits of Men (Job 38:4-7), the other children of God the Father who served Him as agents and messengers as will be seen in chapter 17. Christ was the was the oldest of these spirits, being the Father’s firstborn (Col. 1:15), but now He has been exalted over His fellow spirit brothers and sisters and is equal with God the Father and has become the Father of the righteous (Gal. 4:4-7, Ether 3:14).

Thus, Hebrews 1:9 documents a time when Christ was elevated from among the ranks of His brothers and sisters (John 20:17) to the office of “God.” Before that time, he did not hold the title “God.” He was one of the “morning stars” (Job 38:7), being specifically called the “bright and morning star” (Rev. 22:16). A term that likely designates the highest rank among the pre-mortal spirit children of God (cf., Isa. 14:12). (67)

Thus we see that the Bible teaches that there are significant ways in which Christ has changed but still remains God and is also immutable. That the passages about immutability emphasize the immovable and unchanging nature of God’s attributes without necessarily referring to his position or title is also fairly clear and a reasonable interpretation of the Biblical passages discussing the concept. It can now be seen even further that the Lectures comments about God’s immutability primarily focus on character. Further, the idea that the teachings of Joseph Smith found in the King Follet discourse are an about face from the Lectures, at least regarding immutability, is not true. That they added a new dimension and understanding about God I would not dispute. However, that this was a complete change from a classical view to something entirely new is not the case.

Jones:

At the top of page 45 (A-5) God is referred to as "The God of heaven," not
merely the God of this earth as Latter-day Saints have been led to believe.

This is an astonishing statement and while minor in relation to the overall subject matter being considered it is worth exploring. As a Latter-day Saint, I have never been taught that God is MERELY the God of this earth. Where is the evidence of such a bold claim? It seems sadly missing from this paper. Now deciding to give Mr. Jones the benefit of my strong doubts as to the statement above I did a little legwork. I searched the GospeLink CD using the term “God of this earth.” The search resulted in 324 hits in the writings of the General Authorities of the LDS Church and 345 hits in the other LDS author section. In the writings of the General Authorities I reviewed every hit. Only five of the 324 hits in the writings of the General Authorities mention the exact term “God of this earth.” Of those only one infers the Father is God of this earth but does not make the statement in any way near the way Mr. Jones claims. In one reference it is not clear if the writer is speaking of the Father or the Son, or both. In the other three they are clearly speaking about Jesus Christ, yet even those references about Him do not come anywhere near proclaiming that Jesus is “merely” the God of this earth. (68) As for the other LDS authors I randomly reviewed the 345 hits and found similar results. Some authors referred to the God of this earth or world but were typically speaking of Jesus Christ not the Father.

In fact there is much evidence that LDS leaders have taught that God the Father and God the Son are much more than Mr. Jones thinks Latter-day Saint Christians are led to believe. For example Ezra Taft Benson has written the following about Jesus Christ:

The fundamental principle of our religion is faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Why is it expedient to center confidence, hope, and trust in one solitary figure? Why is faith in Him so necessary to peace of mind in this life and hope in the world to come?

My answer to these questions is derived from a lifetime in His service and the confirmation of the Holy Spirit that only Jesus Christ is uniquely qualified to provide hope, confidence, and strength to overcome the world and rise above our human failings. This is the reason I place my faith and trust in Him and strive to abide by His laws and teachings.

Why faith in Jesus Christ?

Jesus Christ was and is the Lord God Omnipotent. (See Book of Mormon, Mosiah 3:5.) He was chosen before He was born. He was the all-powerful Creator of the heavens and the earth. He is the source of life and light to all things. His word is the law by which all things are governed in the universe. All things created and made by Him are subject to His infinite power.

Jesus Christ is the Son of God. He came to this earth at a foreappointed time through a royal birthright that preserved His Godhood. Combined in His nature were the human attributes of His mortal mother and the divine attributes and power of His Eternal Father.

His unique heredity made Him heir to the honored title the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. As the Son of God, He inherited powers and intelligence that no human has ever had before or since. He was literally Immanuel, which means "God with us."

Even though He was God's Son sent to earth, the divine plan of the Father required that Jesus be subjected to all the difficulties and tribulations of mortality. Thus He became subject to "temptations, . . . hunger, thirst, and fatigue." (Mosiah 3:7.)…Appropriately I praise Him as the Rock of Our Salvation. (69) (My Emphasis)

Regarding the Father and his position in the universal scheme of things, Melvin J. Ballard has written:

Likewise, the Latter-day Saint prophet, Joseph Smith, stated that the world was not made out of nothing, but it was made out of the eternal elements that already existed, that they were organized and brought into being and existence by the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, under the appointment given him by his Father who rules in the midst of the mighty universe and presides over all the worlds; that in certain periods of time, each successive step in the creation was pursued until finally the work was accomplished, and the children of our Father began to come to the earth; and that all during the period from the days of Adam until now the individual who represented the Father, was and is this same Jesus Christ, selected, as the Scriptures indicate, as the Lamb to be slain even before the foundation of the world. And so he was known in the olden days very generally as Jehovah, and came ultimately into the world even as the scriptures tell us. (70) (My emphasis)

Speaking of the entire Godhead, Hugh B. Brown summarized the teachings that Joseph Smith gave regarding what the Father, Son and Holy Ghost “merely” are:

What about his [Joseph Smith’s] message? We said that each of the prophets had a message which ran counter to the theories of his time and challenged the opinions of men. This young man came into the world when the majority of the churches were teaching that God is immaterial, incomprehensible, without body or parts or feeling (and I ask you in passing, can you think of a better definition of nothing, or a more complete denial of him than to say he is incomprehensible, impersonal, immaterial, and has no parts or feelings?) He boldly challenged their creeds with the declaration that "God is a personal being and Jesus Christ, the Risen Redeemer, is separate and distinct from yet in the express image of his Father." He said the Trinity is made up of three Personages, two of them with material bodies and one is a Spirit: they, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost constitute the Godhead, the presiding council of the universe. (71) (My emphasis and brackets)

Regarding the Father, the Encyclopedia of Mormonism provides an excellent summary. One paragraph states:

Yet God the Father is not one in substance with the Son or the Holy Spirit, but is a separate being. The Father existed prior to the Son and the Holy Ghost and is the source of their divinity. In classical terms, LDS theology is subordinationist; that is, it views the Son and the Holy Ghost as subordinate to and dependent upon God the Eternal Father. They are his offspring. Thus Joseph Smith referred to the Father as "God the first" to emphasize his priority in the Godhead (TPJS, p. 190). The Son and the Holy Spirit were "in the beginning, with God," but the Father alone existed before the beginning of the universe as it is known. He is ultimately the source of all things and the Father of all things, for in the beginning he begot the Son, and through the instrumentality of his agent, the Son, the Father accomplished the creation of all things. (72) (My emphasis)

Mr Jones, did you get that last part? He (the Father) alone existed before the beginning of the universe and is the ultimate source of all things! Is this not a tad bit different than what you insist we are led to believe? I should think so.

The above items are but a small sampling of what Latter-day Saints have really “been led to believe.” It is clear that Latter-day Saints view God as much more than the God of this earth only. I wonder how Mr. Jones came up with the idea that we have been led to believe that God is merely the God of this earth. He has access to electronic LDS libraries. I wonder if he used the resource he has to confirm this particular point? If he did, why did he not provide his resources for making such a claim? Is Mr. Jones just demonstrating sloppy research? Whatever the case I would encourage Mr. Jones to drop this position from his paper.

Jones:

Crucial doctrine!
Next, still on page 45, is another reminder that we are looking at the
attributes of God which we must know in order to gain salvation. Would this
have been emphasized so often if it were not crucial doctrine?

Mr. Jones is becoming overly redundant. Why does he feel a need to continue to remind us about how crucial knowing the attributes of God is when nobody has said that it is not? Does he think by repeating the fact that it is crucial doctrine over and over again we will agree that this crucial doctrine was changed in the way he accuses? Sorry, but I again repeat that Latter-day Saints have not insinuated in any way that knowing the attributes of God has ceased to be crucial. In fact we believe an increasing understanding of his attributes is so important that we do not ascribe to his attributes statements of mystery that are constantly used by evangelicals when attempting to explain the unexplainable views a classical theist has about the nature and attributes of God. Indeed as stated a number of times in this paper, the teachings of Joseph Smith in the King Follet discourse merely enlighten and enhance our understanding of the crucial doctrines surrounding God and his attributes.

Jones:

Toward the bottom of the page we find a quote from Isaiah 46:9-JST saying
that there is none other like God. As he is the "God of heaven," doesn't it
stand to reason that there is none other like him in heaven as well as this
earth? He is unique throughout the immensity of space!
Nehemiah puts it this way:
"Thou, even thou, art LORD alone; thou hast made heaven, the heaven of
heavens, with all their host..." (Nehemiah 9:6-JST)
Page 46 (A-5) reiterates, simply, that there is no other God and Savior.

It is interesting to note that these very passages (and others from Isaiah 40-48) above could be used by one of the Jewish persuasion to criticize the evangelical view of the trinity. A strict monotheist such as a Jew has definite problems with the evangelical view of God and the trinity. A classical theist will argue that while there is only one God, there are three distinct personalities that make up God. In essence, three Gods. In fact whenever I hear an evangelical explain the trinity and the three distinct personalities therein, they almost sound like a Latter-day Saint explaining the idea of the separateness of the members of the Godhead.

I have heard evangelicals use similar Old Testament verses to defend the position that the concept of the trinity is found in the Old Testament that Latter-day Saint Christians use to defend our view that God the Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost are separate (See Genesis 1:26; Genesis 11:7) and that while one they are separate and distinct. Similarly I have heard evangelicals and Latter-day Saints use the account of the baptism of Jesus to defend the separateness of the members of the Godhead. The differences basically revolve around issues such as co-substantiality and exactly what is meant by scriptures (both biblical passages and passages from scriptures that are unique to the LDS Church) that speak both of one God and others that indicate that the three members of the Godhead are separate. Nevertheless a Jew could use the same verses to argue against the evangelical view of the trinity that Mr. Jones uses against the Latter-day Saint view of the Godhead. In a private correspondence Lou Midgley put it this way:

But please note that the creeds also all stress the separateness of the members of the Trinity. The very word Trinity was chosen to find a way of insisting on their being three distinct "persons" in the Godhead.

When we think of Protestant and Catholic understandings of the Trinity, we tend to ignore the fact that the creeds stress the distinctness of the three "persons." We thus attribute to sectarians what amounts to a modalist or Sabellian ideology, which is exactly what the authors of the creeds were fighting against.

The problem with the creeds is not that they do not stress that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are separate, but that they see their oneness as one of substance, nature or being, whatever those philosophical terms may mean to theologians or preachers. And they also do some funny things by calling on the Greek and then Latin word we translate as "person."

Now our enemies, at least in my reading, seem to become modalists or Sebellians when they deal

with us. And we fall for this nonsense. We read them and they see themselves as holding that that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not distinct. But that is exactly what the creeds deny. (73)

That said, it is clear from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism passage that I cited previously that Latter-day Saint Christians hold God unique and believe that there is none other like him. The accusation that Latter-day Saints believe in and worship multiple gods is a favorite distortion of the critics. The fact that the teachings of the King Follet Discourse clarify the possibility that we can become like God and that God may have passed through a mortal experience in no way takes away his uniqueness and superiority in the hearts and minds of the Latter-day Saints. Thus we readily agree that there is none other like God in heaven or on earth. The Apostle Paul puts it this way:

1 Corinthians 8:5-6

For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Latter-day Saints interpret this passage to leave open the possibility of the existence of other gods but at the same time wholly agree with Paul’s statement that there is one God to us, God the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. In this eternity and existence they are all there is and all we are concerned with. Bruce R. McConkie puts it this way:

In the ultimate and final sense of the word, there is only one true and living God. He is the Father, the Almighty Elohim, the Supreme Being, the Creator and Ruler of the universe. Paul said: "There is none other God but one. For though there be [others] that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge." (1 Corinthians 8:4-7.)

Christ is God; he alone is the Savior. The Holy Ghost is God; he is one with the Father and the Son. But these two are the second and third members of the Godhead. The Father is God above all, and is, in fact, the God of the Son. Indeed, the resurrected Christ said to Mary Magdalene: "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (John 20:17.) And also: "I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I." (John 14:28.) And yet again: "My Father . . . is greater than all." (John 10:29.)

Thus Paul is saying that the Father is the one God who is supreme; that he is thus the God even of the Lord Jesus Christ, who himself also is God; that many others bear the name of Deity, including all exalted beings and even all false gods, but that none of them is our God; and that Jesus, under the Father, is Lord and Creator of all things. The Prophet Joseph Smith, in discussing the object upon which faith rests, bears this concordant witness: "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; and in him every good gift and every good principle dwell; and he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently; and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings centers for life and salvation." (Lectures on Faith 2:2.) This includes the fact that the faith of Christ, who is God, is centered in his God, who is the Father. (74)

The passage from Isaiah that Mr. Jones cites is one of many that can be found in the book of Isaiah, particularly in chapters 40-48 as mentioned above, that discuss that there is none other like God (see Isa. 43:10-11, 44:6, 44:8, 45:6, 45:21). To understand the meaning of the passage and to ones similar in language the context of the surrounding chapters and the sinful state of those to whom Isaiah was preaching must be considered. Specifically the chapters deal with the sin of idol worship that was running rampant among Israel. The idea presented in the verses speak about the singleness and uniqueness of God as compared to the idols Israel (and their neighbors) often worshipped instead of the true God. While, a full discussion of this topic is beyond the scope of this paper I do want to provide a few comments from two associates of mine regarding this issue. Both were provided to me in private correspondence. The first is from D.C Pyle who emphasizes the that the focus of the Isaiah passages is idol worship:

Actually, when the full context of Isaiah is examined, it does say that the worship of idols and graven images are forbidden and clearly says that there was no God formed (nwsr, root = ysr--apparently, a play on words because it indicates what is molded with the hands), i.e., there was no idol-god or graven image who saved Israel in time past nor would there be another God who would succeed Jehovah in saving Israel (see the solid succeeding context of verses Isaiah 43:11-12) as Jehovah was alone their Savior. All of the verses cited by the critics have as their context the repeated reference to gods who cannot save, i.e., idols and graven images (75)

The second correspondence from Kerry Shirts also emphasizes the idol worship issue and also explores the idea that it is an incorrect use of these passages by our critics to apply them to mean that there is not, nor ever will be other gods in the sense Latter-day Saints believe:

The Hebrew word at Isa. 44:8 appears also at Isa 43:11: "...and beside me there is no savior...."; Isa. 44:6 "....and beside me there is no God...." and then verse 8 as you note and also Isa. 45:6, and 45:21. Now interestingly, the second time the word "beside" is used in the same verse, Isa. 45:21, it is the Hebrew "Zwl" which means "remove." The idea being to mean "except, only, or save that." R. Laird Harris' book "Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament" notes that the Hebrew word at Isa 45:5, "'epes" means that there is no one in the supernatural realm who is his equal (47:8, 10). (Harris, Vol. 1, p. 65, 2nd column, 3/4ths the way down). Notice they are not saying this means there are no other gods, but only no others which are equal to Israel's god. You are correct to note the background is against the heathen nations and their gods, which probably were being taken to be stronger than Israel's God. The Hebrew does not mean there are no others, only that there are no others who are Yahweh's equal. In fact, the Brown, Driver, Briggs, Hebrew Lexicon notes that Isa. 26:13 uses the Hebrew word which translates as "lords other than thou," with the emphasis on "other than". The Hebraica Stuttgartensian Hebrew text translates this as "lords, they ruled us besides you..." Note that this does not mean exclusiveness, but that other than God! So the word "beside(s)" has many meanings in Hebrew. (76)

Last of all the Isaiah passages can be understood in accordance with the principles of agency. Jesus Christ often acts as agent for his Father with the full divine investure of the Father’s power and authority. He is at those times, in essence, the Father. Richard Hopkins points out that the word God in the Isaiah passages in question “is not a proper noun. It does not name Christ as an individual, but refers to the Principal, namely the Father, and the singular authority exercised by that Principle…The word “God” in these passages was not meant to refer to a specific person. It was used to refer to an authority, a position, or an office, of which there is only one.” (77)

Obviously, the implications of Mr. Jones use of the Isaiah and Nehemiah verses are open to disputation and varying interpretations. Without a doubt his use of the verses to accuse Latter-day Saints of worshipping more than one God and to infer that Joseph Smith did not teach the Latter-day Saints to worship one God is an error.

Jones:

Question #8:
Didn't Joseph Smith say, "I have always and in all congregations, when I have
preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It
has been preached by the Elders for 15 years"? (TPJS, p.370, June 16, 1844; A-7)
Answer:
The above quote from Joseph Smith is accurate, but is his claim true? If it's
true, that would mean that, counting back 15 years from 1844, Joseph began
teaching the plurality of Gods in 1829. But, 10 years later, in 1839, God
allegedly gave the following revelation about:
"...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)
If Joseph and the Elders had known, by the word of God since 1829, that there
was more than one God, why would God have given them this revelation?

First of all, the fact that God gave a revelation in 1839 regarding the plurality of gods in no way impugns the fact that the LDS Church taught that God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost were separate and distinct individuals from the early inception of the Church, yet still one God. I fail to see the correlation. As I pointed out above a Jew may argue against an evangelical Christian the way Mr. Jones argues against us.

Perhaps Mr. Jones should apply the same selective comparative standards to the Biblical texts of the Old Testament that declare that the Lord God is one Lord (Deut. 6:4), and that there are no other God beside him (Isa. 43:10-12), to new Testament verses that declare that God the Father, The Son and Holy Ghost are separate personalities, that The Father is superior to the Son, and that the Father is Jesus’ God (Matt.3:16-17, John 14:28, John 20:17). Did Moses understand the intricacies of the Godhead? Did Isaiah? Does the Old Testament preach a three member Godhead? If yes then why the need for the additional revelation contained in the New Testament? If no then there was a tremendous change in the Biblical teachings about the nature of God. At least this would be the result using the standards Mr. Jones applies to Doctrine & Covenants 121:28 and to the teachings of the King Follet discourse. Much of his own belief structure would fail if he applied the same standards against it that he employs against the Latter-day Saints.

But what did the Prophet Joseph Smith mean when he said, “I wish to declare I have always and in all congregations when I have preached on the subject of the Deity, it has been the plurality of Gods. It has been preached by the Elders for fifteen years?” (78) What is the context of this remark as compared to the passage in Doctrine &Covenants 121:28? Is Doctrine & Covenants 121:28 a valid comparison to the Prophet’s claim that he had for fifteen years preached the plurality of Gods in order to “prove” that he actually did not? Is there really a contradiction?

When Joseph Smith claimed to teach the plurality of Gods for fifteen years it was a direct reference to God the Father, His Son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. In fact the statement is totally plausible when reviewing the Book of Mormon teachings about the Godhead in total context (more on this below). Since Joseph Smith was wrapping up the translation of the Book of Mormon in preparation for publication in 1829 the fifteen-year statement is accurate. In the following sentence of the same sermon by the Prophet quoted above we read:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from 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. If this is in accordance with the New Testament, lo and behold! we have three Gods anyhow, and they are plural; and who can contradict it? (79)

Again, by going back to the Book of Mormon and 1829 we find that this is an accurate remark.

Now let’s look at Doctrine & Covenants 121:28-32:

A time to come in the which nothing shall be withheld, whether there be one God or many gods, they shall be manifest. All thrones and dominions, principalities and powers, shall be revealed and set forth upon all who have endured valiantly for the gospel of Jesus Christ. And also, if there be bounds set to the heavens or to the seas, or to the dry land, or to the sun, moon, or stars-All the times of their revolutions, all the appointed days, months, and years, and all the days of their days, months, and years, and all their glories, laws, and set times, shall be revealed in the days of the dispensation of the fulness of times—According to that which was ordained in the midst of the Council of the Eternal God of all other gods before this world was, that should be reserved unto the finishing and the end thereof, when every man shall enter into his eternal presence and into his immortal rest.

This passage of scripture is not referring to the plurality of Gods that Joseph Smith mentions when he said he has taught the plurality of Gods for fifteen years. In that statement Joseph referred only to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Section 121 is referring to something entirely different than the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Its focus is the potential revelation of knowledge that has been held till these latter days. It simply informs us that there may be gods. It is not talking about the same thing as Joseph is in the introduction of his sermon about the plurality of Gods. It is clear that Doctrine and Covenants 121 is letting us know that our knowledge on this subject may be expanded. That expansion came in 1844 when Joseph Smith taught the ideas that Mr. Jones has such a problem with. Those ideas parlay directly into Doctrine and Covenants 121:28. Thus, while Joseph Smith received greater light and knowledge about God then he may have had in 1829 he did not move away from a classical theistic view because from the earliest point of his ministry forward he did not hold such a view. I will provide further evidence of this fact below. However, suffice it to say that Mr. Jones argument “If Joseph and the Elders had known, by the word of God since 1829, that there was more than one God, why would God have given them this revelation?” is rather spurious. (80)

No plurality of Gods in early LDS teachings
As if the contradictory revelation of 1839 were not enough, there is also a
complete absence of teaching on the plurality of Gods prior to that date. A
recent computer search of LDS Scripture, TPJS, History of the Church, Journal
of Discourses, etc. has turned up nothing that would verify Joseph's claim.
On the other hand, the Bible (including JST) and the Book of Mormon provide
an abundance of evidence that, in the beginning, Joseph Smith taught that the
Father, Son and Holy Ghost were just one God, the only God in all of creation
and throughout all time, past, present and future.

Before I proceed to demonstrate the futility of Mr. Jones argument immediately above, let me again emphasize that when Joseph Smith said he had taught the plurality of gods for fifteen years it was in reference to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Let me also point out that Mr. Jones is guilty of applying his own interpretations on unique LDS scripture that discuss he oneness and separateness of the members of the Godhead as well as the biblical passages that discuss the same topics. I have pointed this out a number of times in this paper. Mr. Jones may plead that his interpretations are correct and that is fine. However, he may also attempt to assert that his interpretations of the various passages are pure and untainted. If so, this would be an error. The ideas about God that classical theists argue are not purely biblical. One simply cannot reach the conclusions of a creedal Trinitarian without the extra-biblical creeds. Barry Bickmore has noted when summarizing the various major movements of early Christianity that “Catholic Christianity grew out of the original Jewish Christianity as the faith moved more and more into a world saturated by Greek, or “Hellenistic” culture. As Adolf von Harnack observed, this move catalyzed ‘the greatest transformation which the new religion ever experienced…’ (Harneck, What is Christianity? 191-92) (81) That the “greatest transformation” surrounded ideas about God’s nature is without a doubt. Bickmore further points out:

Indeed, Harnack calls the influx of Greek thought forms into Christianity “the greatest fact in the history of the Church in the second century,” (Harnack, What is Christianity? P.200) and, once it was thus established, the trend continued through the centuries. Hatch summarizes his study with the following observation: “A large part of what are sometimes called Christian doctrines, and many usages which have prevailed and continue to prevail in the Christian Church, are in reality Greek theories and Greek usages changed in form and colour by the influence of primitive Christianity, but in their essence Greek still. (Hatch, The influence of Greek Ideas and usages upon the Christian Church, 350) (82)

Thus, Mr. Jones may apply his classical theistic views and interpretations as long as he wishes. That his interpretations of both biblical and uniquely LDS scripture is correct may actually be in the eye of the beholder. That he wears his classical theistic glasses when he states “the Bible (including JST) and the Book of Mormon provide an abundance of evidence that, in the beginning, Joseph Smith taught that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were just one God, the only God in all of creation and throughout all time, past, present and future” is beyond question

Additionally let me point out one additional item before I refute Mr. Jones point. While Mr. Jones claims to have performed a computer search of LDS resources his claim is meaningless unless he provides the details of the search as I did above. What were his search terms? What resources did it cover? Was it limited to the items above? What does the search encompass? Did the search cover all the appropriate or available resources? Without such detail I am left to effectively dismiss Mr. Jones statement about his lack of success in finding what he claims to have looked for. Based on the lack of support the fact that his particular search “turned up nothing” is inconclusive. Basically he has failed to provide documentation for his claim of complete absence of this particular teaching. He has failed as well to provide references for the abundant evidence that Joseph Smith taught “that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost were just one God.” Surely if the evidence is so abundant why not provide just a few examples? Since Mr. Jones decided not to provide his evidence as it relates to his criticism I will provide it for him.

Since Joseph Smith’s quote regarding teaching the “plurality of Gods” for fifteen years put this date back to 1829 I thought it would be beneficial to first examine the teachings about God in the Book of Mormon. It is clear from the title page of the Book of Mormon that its main focus is to convince the world that “Jesus Christ is the Christ, the Eternal God.” Additionally the testimony of the three witnesses declares the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be one God. Additional passages in the Book of Mormon affirm the oneness of the Godhead (see for example 2 Nephi 31:21, Mosiah 15:1-5, Alma 11:44, 3 Nephi 11:27). However these passages, as well as Doctrine and Covenants 20:28, do not necessarily imply the Trinitarian view that Mr. Jones assumes they do. Latter-day Saints proclaim the oneness of the Godhead but not the co-substantiality of the Godhead. We do not, and did not, interpret the Book of Mormon passages about the oneness of the God in a classical way. Robert Millet discussed this idea in the following way:

Presumably those who believe the Book of Mormon presents a trinitarian concept of God assume that the book reflects the prevailing sentiments of the nineteenth century concerning God. This is worthy of at least brief discussion. Although the Book of Mormon prophets speak of the "oneness" of the members of the Godhead, this need not imply trinitarianism. There were, in fact, many people in the nineteenth century who believed in the oneness of the Godhead but rejected the mysterious notions associated with trinitarianism. David Millard, a minister who organized an Eastern Christian Church, published a pamphlet in 1818 in which he attacked the prevailing view of the Trinity. He undertook a scriptural analysis of the New Testament to prove his point. "The whole tenor of scripture," he asserted, "concurs in the testimony, that Christ is verily the Son of God, as really so as Isaac is the son of Abram." Millard further stressed the illogicality of the Nicean concept: "Three Gods are not one God, any more than three times one are one or two and one are one: which not only destroys the rules of multiplication and addition, but is flat inconsistency" (The True Messiah Exalted, or Jesus Christ Really the Son of God, Vindicated; in Three Letters to a Presbyterian Minister (Canandaigua, N.Y.:p., 1818), 5-8). William Ellery Channing, known as the father of Unitarianism, declared in a famous Baltimore sermon in 1819, "We object to the doctrine of the Trinity," for "when we attempt to conceive of three Gods, we can do nothing more than represent to ourselves three agents"--meaning, of course, three different persons (The Works of William E. Channing (Boston: American Unitarian Association, 1886), 371). In a letter dated 19 May 1835 concerning his beliefs prior to conversion to the Latter-day Saint faith, William W. Phelps no doubt reflected the views of other lay persons in nineteenth-century New England: "I was not a professor at the time, nor a believer in sectarian religion, but a believer in God, and the Son of God, as two distinct characters, and a believer in sacred scripture." (The Latter-day Saints Messenger and Advocate 1 (May 1835): 115). There is no indication in Phelps's letter that such a belief was contrary in any way to the teachings of the restored Church; in fact, the statement implies that his preconversion beliefs were in harmony with the teachings of the Latter-day Saints. (83)

Interestingly, the quote Millet provides from William W. Phelps is dated May 1835. This is significant when considering the Lectures on Faith were published in August of 1835. It is instructive to note that Phelps believed that the Father and Son were “distinct characters” just prior to the publication of the work that Mr. Jones insists teach that God and Christ are one in the classical theistic mode of understanding. More on this later. However, the reader of this paper should keep this firmly in mind as they proceed with this study.

Returning to Book of Mormon teachings about God, I want to emphasize that the scriptural passages about God, His Son and the Holy Ghost must be taken and studied in context and together. Latter-day Saints apply this same parameter when studying New Testament passages about the Godhead. Approaching the holy writ with this guideline firmly in place it is apparent that the Trinitarian view of the Godhead is not found in the Book of Mormon or in the New Testament. With this in mind we can see that while the Book of Mormon teaches the oneness of God it also plainly teaches that they are separate and distinct. For example during the ministry of Jesus Christ to the Americas He spoke and taught in similar language about his relationship with His Father as can be found in the New Testament. Chapters 16 through 21 of Third Nephi are filled with language that makes it clear that he is distinct and separate from the Father. Jesus clearly states that He receives commandments from the Father (3 Nephi 16:2), He speaks of covenants the Father has made (3 Nephi 16:5), He commands the people to pray to the Father in his name and tells them that he is going to the Father (3 Nephi 17:3; 18:24-27), and much more. Additionally the language Christ uses in these passages of scripture speak clearly that the Holy Ghost is as separate from the Father and Jesus as Jesus is from the Father. Additionally many other passages in the Book of Mormon emphasize and distinguish the separateness of the Father and the Son. Turning to Millet’s BYU study we see that:

The Book of Mormon also distinguishes between the Father and the Son in many instances. For example, in 1 Nephi 11:24 Nephi writes, "And I looked, and I beheld the Son of God going forth among the children of men." Phrases such as "the Son of God," and "the Son of the Everlasting God" occur scores of times throughout the remainder of the record. The presentation in the Book of Mormon is similar to that in the New Testament concerning the separateness yet oneness of the members of the Godhead. Although the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate and distinct individuals, they are infinitely more one than separate: one God, one Godhead, united in purpose, power, and glory (see 2 Nephi. 31:21; Alma 11:44; Moroni. 7:7). And yet they are separate persons. Consider the following points where the Book of Mormon distinguishes between the Father and the Son:

1. We pray to the Father in the name of the Son (2 Ne. 32:9; 3 Nephi. 18:19-20; Morm. 9:27; Ether 4:15; Moroni. 4:3; 5:2; 8:3; 10:4).

2. We worship the Father in the name of the Son (2 Ne. 25:16; Jacob 4:4-5).

3. Christ received powers from his Father (Mosiah 15:2-3; Helaman. 5:10-11; Morm. 7:5).

4. Christ's atonement reconciles us to God (Alma 12:33-34; Moroni. 7:22, 26-27).

5. The voices of the Father and Son are distinguished (2 Ne. 31:10-15).

6. The entire ministry of Christ among the Nephites and his constant reference and deference to the Father evidence their separateness (3 Ne. 11-28). (84)

Similar teachings and language regarding the oneness and separateness of God are found all through the New Testament in both the Gospels (particularly the Gospel of John) and writings of the apostles. While I could spend space in this paper illustrating these examples for the sake of brevity I refer the reader to John 17. In my view this is the greatest and clearest teaching about how the Father and Son are one and yet separate persons. In fact in Lecture Five of the Lectures on Faith we can see that the wording about the oneness and yet separateness of the Godhead is similar to the language of John 17. The idea of the classical view of the oneness of the Godhead is not found in John 17, in the Book of Mormon, or in the teachings of the early LDS Church (see also D&C 35:2 which was revealed in 1830). Indeed I can readily agree with Robert Millet’s summation on this same topic:

In the final analysis, the Book of Mormon is about as trinitarian as the New Testament. Bernhard Lohse writes, "as far as the New Testament is concerned, one does not find in it an actual doctrine of the Trinity"; it was "well into the fourth century before the doctrine of the Trinity was dogmatically clarified." (Bernard Lohse, A Short History of Christian Doctrine (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), 37, 38; see also Edmund J. Fortman, The Tribune God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1942), 14; J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Philedelphia: Fortress, 1980), 90). As Backman has said, no one has

located a publication (such as an article appearing in a church periodical or statement from a missionary pamphlet) written by an active Latter-day Saint prior to the martyrdom of the Prophet that defends the traditional or popular creedal concept of the Trinity…

Moreover, there are no references in critical writings of the 1830s (including statements by apostates) that Joseph Smith introduced in the mid-thirties the doctrine of separateness of the Father and Son (Backman, “Joseph Smith’s First Vision,” 29). (85)

In other words while Mr. Jones says he has not found evidence that the doctrine of the plurality of Gods was taught in the early period of the LDS Church he has failed to demonstrate that the classical concept of the Trinity was taught. If it was where are the thesis’ that demonstrate such teachings? Where are the expositions that demonstrate that “LDS and traditional Christian understanding about the attributes of God were virtually identical” as Mr. Jones insists? Where is the evidence that there was a sudden change in the teachings about the separate nature of the Godhead in the late 1830’s that moved so radically away from the ‘traditional” concepts about God? If there was such a change why didn’t the membership of the Church rebel against it? Why would apostates be silent about it? Why would the LDS canon remain unchanged if it teaches a classical view that was so radically changed by Joseph Smith in the 1840’s? Why would Truman Coe, write in 1836, which is the within the time frame Jones asserts “traditional” ideas about God were taught in the LDS Church, criticize the saints as follows:

"They [the Mormons] contend that the God worshiped by the Presbyterians and all other sectarians is no better than a wooden god. They believe that the true God is a material being, composed of body and parts; and that when the Creator formed Adam in his own image, he made him about the size and shape of God himself." (86)

Why would William W. Phelps write in 1835 that he believed that God and Christ were separate and stay part of the LDS Church if the classical view of God were being taught contrary to his views? Does not the fact that Phelps believed this and became a part of the LDS Church lend support that this is what was taught about God even in the early LDS period? Why would Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon claim to have a vision in 1832 (D&C 76: 21-24) of Christ and speak in terms that are clearly demonstrate that the Father and the Son are separate and distinct if the classical understanding about God was entrenched in early LDS doctrine? The answer is clear. The classical concept was not being taught in early LDS history. And while there is no question that the Prophet Joseph Smith received additional light and knowledge about God than was had in the early LDS Church, these teachings were not a radical change from classical theism. That they flow from earlier LDS understanding about God in a logical progressive way has already been demonstrated in this paper and will be mentioned further below.

Jones:

Question #9:
Doesn't that mean they are one in purpose?
Answer:
No one would disagree that they are one in purpose, just as we can be one
with them in purpose (Jn 17:22-JST), but nowhere in the Standard Works does
it say that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one in purpose only. LDS
scripture does say, simply and clearly, that they are one God, that there is
only one God and that no one else is going to be God, ever. (Alma 11:44; D&C
20:28; Isaiah 43:10-JST...These are just a sample of many verses which can be
quoted)

Mr. Jones here accuses that there is nowhere in the LDS Standard Works where it states that the Godhead is one in purpose only. However, there is nowhere in the bible that teaches the Godhead is one in substance, anywhere. So Mr. Jones would fail his own test if he cared to apply it to his own doctrine. He cites verses selectively that talk about the oneness of God and then ignores others that make it clear that the members of the Godhead are separate and distinct. I have illustrated above how the scripture must be taken as a whole in order to understand how the Godhead is one and yet separate. Mr. Jones fails to do this. For example, Mr. Jones references D&C 20:28 yet he ignores D&C 35:2 which states “I am Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, even as many as will believe on my name, that they may become the sons of God, even one in me as I am one in the Father, as the Father is one in me, that we may be one.” Obviously the same idea of oneness that is taught in John 17 is reiterated in D&C 35:2. Clearly by taking the scripture as a whole a concept far different from what Mr. Jones is imposing on early LDS teaching appears. (See also D&C 93)

As for Mr. Jones position that John 17:22 says we can only be one in purpose with God and Christ he again misses the mark. The concept being taught in John 17 is that we can be one in exactly the same way God and Jesus are one. In John 17 Jesus is praying to his Father. This is our first clue that they are separate and distinct. Secondly he is praying that his apostles and other followers can be one, even as he and the Father are one (John 17:11). Note that the verse says “…that they may be one, as we are.” There is absolutely no limitation to being one in purpose mentioned here. Did you get that? It says that those who have been given to Jesus are to be one just like the Father and Son are. There is nothing that lends support that he is asking the Father that the apostles will be anything but one in the same way they are one or that there is any additional way they are one outside of what is being taught in the chapter. Mr. Jones is inserting commentary in the scripture that is just not there. This is because without doing so his classical view about God falls to pieces. There is no other explanation. To extract the Trinitarian God of the creeds out of John 17 is an act of eisogesis acrobats. Let’s look at some key passages out of John 17 a bit further. John 17:20-23 states:

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

Now where in these passages does it come anywhere near teaching that for Jesus’ followers to be one with God and Christ is to be just one in purpose and that the Jesus is only referring to one in purpose? It says that we may be one just like the Father and Christ and that Christ will be in us in the same way the Father is in him. This means we can be one with them in the same way they are one. One in purpose? Yes. One in power, might and glory as well? Yes. One in substance? No, because the scripture does not teach this. If the Godhead is one in substance then John 17 is telling us that we will be one in substance with them because it says that we can be one with them in the same way they are one. Obviously this is not what John 17 is saying. But to insist that there is another way that the Godhead is one outside of the ideas of John 17 and that John 17 is saying that the idea of being one in purpose is all the prayer of Christ is teaching is superfluous. John 17 insists that we can be one in exactly the same way God and Christ are one. Nothing more, nothing less. Latter-day Saint Christians believe that the Godhead is one. In fact their view about God’s oneness does move beyond a one in purpose mode only. Yet it does not reach the language of the creeds. The following from Bruce R. McConkie provides an excellent summary of these concepts and while somewhat lengthy it is worthy of inclusion:

For reasons that we shall delineate hereafter—in language as plain, as simple, and as persuasive as in our power lies—Jesus taught, repetitiously, both while a mortal man and after being raised in glorious immortality, that he and his Father are one. And implicit in all of his utterances to this effect is found the nature of their oneness, the manner in which, though separate personages, they are one in a way of tremendous import to the children of men.

While a mortal he said to his Jewish brethren: "I and my Father are one," which they understood to mean that he "being a man" was making himself "God." (John 10:30-33.) Speaking of his Twelve Disciples he prayed: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are." Then because every blessing bestowed upon or offered to those who hold the holy apostleship is also available for and offered to all of the faithful, he also said to his Father: "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me." At this point in his great Intercessory Prayer, his petitions again centered on the Twelve, though in principle all that he said does or shall apply to all the saints. "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them," he said, "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. . . . And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them." (John 17:11-26.)

After the inseparable union of his body and spirit in immortal glory, he said to his Nephite brethren: "I am in the Father, and the Father in me; and in me hath the Father glorified his name." (3 Ne. 9:15.) Also: "Verily I say unto you, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost are one; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me, and the Father and I are one. . . . I bear record of the Father and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; . . . Whoso believeth in me believeth in the Father also; and unto him will the Father bear record of me, for he will visit him with fire and with the Holy Ghost. And thus will the Father bear record of me, and the Holy Ghost will bear record unto him of the Father and me; for the Father, and I, and the Holy Ghost are one." (3 Ne. 11:27-36.)

Later, of the whole body of Nephite believers, in a prayer reminiscent of and greater than his mortal Intercessory Prayer, our Lord said: "And now Father, I pray unto thee for them, and also for all those who shall believe on their words, that they may believe in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one. . . . Father, I pray not for the world, but for those whom thou hast given me out of the world, because of their faith, that they may be purified in me, that I may be in them as thou, Father, art in me, that we may be one, that I may be glorified in them." (3 Ne. 19:23, 29.)

From these and related teachings found in revealed writ, and all such are declarations which cannot be gainsayed, we learn these truths relative to the Gods we worship:

1. They are three in number, three separate persons: the first is the Father; the second, the Son; and the third, the Holy Ghost. They are three individuals who meet together, counsel in concert, and as occasion requires travel separately through all immensity. They are three holy men, two having bodies of flesh and bones, the third being a personage of spirit.

2. They are one and dwell in each other, meaning: They have the same mind one with another; they think the same thoughts, speak the same words, and perform the same acts—so much so that any thought, word, or act of one is the thought, word, or act of the other.

3. They possess the same character, enjoy the same perfections, and manifest the same attributes, each one possessing all of these in their eternal and godly fulness.

4. Their unity in all things, their perfect oneness in mind, power, and perfections, marks the course and charts the way for faithful mortals, whose chief goal in life is to unite together and become one with them, thereby gaining eternal life for themselves.

5. Our Lord is the manifestation of the Father, meaning: God is in Christ revealing himself to men so that those who believe in the Son believe also in the Father, and unto such the Father gives the Holy Ghost, and they being thus purified in Christ are fit to dwell with him and his Father forever. (87) (My Emphasis)

Jones:

Question #10
What about Joseph Smith's first vision, where he saw God the Father and the
Son as two separate and physical entities?
ANSWER:
Today's official version of the vision was first published in 1838, eighteen
years after the alleged event. But let's look at the original rendition of
the first vision in the prophet's own handwriting, recorded six years
earlier. You'll find it at A-9, 10.
A-9 has the title page of the book, The Personal Writings of Joseph Smith,
and page 6 of this transcript from Joseph's journal where you can verify the
text and context. A-10 is a photocopy of the original page from Joseph's
journal, also found in the same book.
Notice that the underlined text says, "and I saw the Lord and he spake unto
me... I was crucified...". This is clearly speaking of Jesus Christ and there
is no mention of the Father. In 1832, Joseph Smith evidently had no notion of
more than one God. Which do you believe, the original version of the first
vision in his own handwriting, or the version written 6 years later, during
the germination of his new gospel?

I have already demonstrated that Joseph Smith did indeed view God, Christ and the Holy Ghost as separate as early as 1829. The context of the Book of Mormon teachings is clear on this matter. But what of the 1832 account of the first vision? Is the fact that Joseph does not mention seeing the Father in this account proof that the Prophet viewed God in the same way classical theists do? Does it prove that he did not see the Father in his vision? The answers to these questions are no. First of all, in the 1832 account, Joseph never said that he only saw one being, he says only that he saw the Lord. Keep in mind that the in the first vision the Father only introduces the Son. The remainder of the vision is a conversation between Joseph and Christ. Is it then surprising that in his first effort to relate this event Joseph focuses on Jesus Christ? Does the fact that one varies in the relation of an event in one way negate all the others? Pure logic tells us that while I may relate an incident in one way the fact that I may include or exclude varying details on differing occasions does not make the renditions of the related event false or contradictory.

For example, I may spend an evening with my good friends David and Jolene, who are married. Perhaps some days later I may be at my office and mention to one of my staff that I saw Jolene the previous weekend. Now the fact that I saw Jolene is significant to this staff person because Jolene is the controller for her family business, which is one of my largest clients. If I do not mention that I saw David as well that does not mean I did not see him. Relating the event at another point in time I may emphasize that I saw David, or saw David and Jolene. All accounts of the events are true.

Now Mr. Jones asks which version of the Joseph Smith’s account of his first vision do we believe? I find it amazing that such a question would come from a Bible believing evangelical Christian. Perhaps Mr. Jones would like to tell us, which of the varying accounts of Paul’s vision that are provided in the New Testament he believes. And why does he apply a different standard when considering Joseph Smith’s accounts? Is he aware that the accounts of Paul’s vision conflict? If so does he think that this impugns the integrity of the text or the accounts? Is that not an example of the LDS critic employing a double standard that I mentioned above? (88)

Now, regarding which accounts of Joseph’s vision we believe, the answer is all of them just like we believe the varying accounts of Paul’s vision. The 1832 account is just as true as the 1835 account and the 1838 account. Each account emphasizes differing aspects of the vision for varying reasons, one of which is the audience for which the account was provided. In fact there are nine accounts of the first vision all of which harmonize and emphasize varying aspects of the Joseph’s experience. (89).

Let me close out this topic with one last critical point. Mr. Jones emphasizes the 1832 account of the first vision because he feels that it strengthens his point that Joseph believed in the Trinitarian God of the creeds. He has also relied heavily on the Lectures on Faith in making his argument. He believes that in August of 1835 the LDS Church still held fast to a belief in a classical Godhead. Keep in mind that in the introduction of his paper Mr. Jones stated:

One way to approach this is to take a look at a time when LDS and traditional

Christian understanding about the attributes of God were virtually identical.

Then, try to ascertain what, when, why, and how things changed. Let’s begin

with the officially documented teachings of both groups. We Agreed in 1835.

Now if Jones thinks we agreed in 1835 why then does he ignore the 1835 account of the first vision? The account was written in November of 1835 only three months after the publication of the Lectures on Faith. In the account it is clear that Joseph Smith saw two personages and while the 1832 account does not say that he saw only one personage, the 1835 account is clearer. It seems that this account because is ignored because it flat out refutes Mr. Jones idea that “Joseph Smith evidently had no notion of more than one God. The following is the relevant portion of the 1835 account which, was recorded by Warren A. Cowdrey, with original spelling and grammar intact:

Being thus perplexed in mind I retired to the silent grove and there bowed down before the Lord, under a realizing sense (if the bible be true) ask and you shall receive, knock and it shall be opened, seek and you shall find, and again, if any man lack wisdom, let of God who giveth to all men liberally & upbraideth not. Information was what I most desired at this time, and with a fixed determination to obtain it, I called on the Lord for the first time in the place above stated, or in other words, I made a fruitless attempt to pray My tongue seemed to be swoolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter, I heard a noise behind me like some one walking towards me. I strove again to pray, but could not; the noise of walking seemed to draw nearer, I sprang upon my feet and looked round, but saw no person, or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking. I kneeled again, my mouth was opened and my tongue loosed; I called on the Lord in mighty prayer. A pillar of fire appeared above my head; which presently rested down upon me, and filled me with unspeakable joy. A personage appeared in the midst of this pillar of flame, which was spread all around and yet nothing consumed. Another personage soon appeared like unto the first: he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee.

He testified also unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God. I saw many angels in this vision. I was about 14 years old when I received this first communication…(90)

Clearly in 1835 (and before as has been demonstrated) Joseph Smith taught that God the Father and His Son are separate and distinct beings. The 1835 account of the first vision lends additional support to this fact and shows that Mr. Jones fails in his interpretations of early LDS teachings about God including those found in the Lectures on Faith. Examining the full facts and context of the early teachings of the LDS Church most definitely reveals that Jones and the other critics have used selective items with misapplied interpretations to construct a picture of early LDS teachings about the Godhead and an argument that just does not exist. Curiously enough they rail on the LDS Church and the evolution over a mere 15 years of LDS teachings and ideas about God while they ignore the hundreds of years of Christological debates that developed into the classical view of the Godhead in “historic” Christianity. Why is that? Would their own teachings withstand the same application of the criticism they heap on us? I personally doubt it.

Jones:

Now, back to God's attributes, on page 51 (A-5), here's another reminder that
these attributes of God never change. He has always been God. We can trust
him because he is not a man. He is unique (there never has been and never
will be another like Him). Notice too, that the reason these attributes can
never change is "so that all men have had, and will have an equal privilege."
Finally, the underlined question at the bottom of page 51 reminds us again
that we could not "lay hold of eternal life" without knowing the preceding
attributes of God, a few of which we have examined.

The views of what it is about God that does not change explained above fit just fine into the idea that his attributes remain constant so that all may have an equal privilege. The LDS understanding of God as it has evolved through revelation does absolutely nothing to put men at a disadvantage. In fact the LDS teachings about the plan of salvation and our relationship with God is, in my view, the most fair I know of, at least in Christian teachings. As far as the rest of Mr. Jones comments immediately above we have heard them repeated over and over. I have responded over and over. Let me again repeat, nobody is saying, has said, or will, in my opinion say, that a knowledge of God’s attributes are not important. Joseph Smith never said it and to the best of my knowledge no Latter-day Saint leader, teacher, writer or scholar has said it. In fact we believe we have the greater understanding about God’s attributes and that our critics are the ones lacking. Accordingly we would invite them to come and learn the greater knowledge so that they may indeed understand and know what they worship.

Jones:

Another important change in God's nature

On A6, you'll find page 53 of the 1835 D&C. Here, in the Fifth Lecture on
Faith, it plainly states that the Father is "a personage of spirit." Again,
the teaching is the same as what the Bible and Christianity have always
taught; not a personage of flesh and bone as the Mormon Church teaches today.
Notice that, in the same sentence, the nature of the Father is contrasted to
the nature of the son who is "a personage of tabernacle" (or body).

To begin with I have already emphasized that Joseph Smith’s understanding about God grew from 1829 to 1844. There is no question that he knew more about the Godhead prior to his death in 1844 than he knew early in his ministry. The main thrust of my arguments in responding to Mr. Jones position is that he did not believe in a Trinitarian creedal concept of God from the early days of his ministry. I believe that this has been demonstrated sufficiently already in this response. I have examined early teachings in the Church about God found in the Book of Mormon, accounts about the first vision, the New Testament and to a limited extent the Doctrine and Covenants. I have also addressed the issues Mr. Jones has brought up from the Lectures on Faith and demonstrated both that he has misinterpreted the passages from the Lectures that he has used, or at least I have demonstrated valid differing interpretations. I have also shown that he has elevated the Lectures to a status they never had. I have shown that the later understanding about God that Joseph Smith taught fits well into the earlier teachings about God found in the Lectures and that Latter-day Saint scriptures still teach, as well as Latter-day Saints Christians still believe, the items Mr. Jones insists Joseph Smith cast aside. Now we will explore the last bit of specific criticism Mr. Jones attempts to bring to play from the Lectures.

Because Lecture Fifth of the Lectures on Faith is pivotal to Mr. Jones argument I have provided it in full in Appendix C. Now regarding the statements about God being a personage of spirit found in Lecture Five I thought it best to begin with the following from Robert Millet:

The problem lies in the fact that the Prophet appears to be teaching that God the Father is a "personage of spirit" while Jesus is a "personage of tabernacle." It is possible that Joseph Smith simply did not understand the corporeal or physical nature of God at the time the Lectures on Faith were delivered. His knowledge of things--like that of all men and women--was often incremental, and his development in understanding was therefore a "line upon line" development. As a result of the First Vision, the boy prophet knew that the heavens were no longer sealed; that Satan was more than myth or metaphor; and that the Father and Son were separate and distinct personages. But there is no mention in any of his four accounts of the First Vision of the fact that God has a body of flesh and bones. The earliest reference to the corporeality of God seems to come in a sermon on 5 January 1841 (See Alexander, Mormonism in Transition, 280-81). It was not until 2 April 1843 in Ramus, Illinois, that the Prophet gave instructions on this matter that are the basis for D&C 130:22-23: "The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man's; the Son also. But the Holy Ghost is a personage of spirit." (Ehat and Cook, eds., Words of Joseph Smith, 60; see also statements on 16 February 1841 (p. 63) and on 9 March 1841 (p. 64))

It is also possible, however, that Joseph Smith did indeed understand that God has a body but that the passage in lecture 5 has been misunderstood. What then could the phrase mean? To begin with, we should note that the complete expression is not "a personage of spirit" but rather "a personage of spirit, glory, and power." This may well be intended more as a description of God's divine nature--a statement regarding his exalted and glorified status--than of his physical being. The word spirit, as used, for example, in Moses 1, is a synonym for glory or power: God's Spirit is his glory (see Moses 1:9, 15). Thus it is that lecture 5 later speaks of "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" (5:2). Note that the phrase "spirit, glory, and power" is here used to describe what makes the Son one with the Father--the attributes of Godhood.

It is interesting that in the catechism following lecture 5 the response to the question, "What is the Father?" is given: "He is a personage of glory and of power." The rather obvious omission is any reference to the Father as a personage of spirit--perhaps because to say such would be repetitious; we have already established that he is a personage of power and glory, which to Joseph Smith may have been exactly the same as saying he is a personage of spirit. It is also worth noting in the catechism that all of the scriptures cited to establish the Father as a personage of power and glory speak of his attributes and his exaltation. Noticeably absent is John 4:24 ("God is a spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and truth")--the one passage from the Bible that might have been used to establish clearly that God is a spirit. But Joseph Smith would not cite this passage from the King James Bible, since he had previously learned by revelation (some time between November 1831 and 16 February 1832) that this verse required an inspired translation: "The hour cometh and now is, when the true worshipers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth; for the Father seeketh such to worship him. For unto such hath God promised his Spirit. And they who worship him, must worship in spirit and in truth" (JST, John 4:25-26). It is possible, indeed, that the inspired revision of the Bible had some impact on the Prophet's thought regarding the nature of God; that is to say, if he did not know of the corporeality of God at the time of the First Vision, did he know it by the time he had translated these verses in John? (91)

While the summary above by Millet is excellent in and of itself there are a number of items worth noting. First of all is the point that indeed Joseph Smith may not have known that God the Father had a corporeal body in 1835. However, to view this as a fatal problem or an argument that Joseph Smith had a dramatic change from the classical view of God to something different just does not hold water. This is because it is clear from the earliest of LDS teachings that even if Joseph did not yet understand in the early 1830’s that God was corporeal, his view of a personage of spirit is one of an embodied personage, not one of an unembodied spirit essence that Mr. Jones thinks that the Bible and early LDS scripture supports. It is critical to understand earlier LDS teaching about how Joseph Smith viewed a spirit. There is an abundance of evidence that demonstrates a very different view of a personage of spirit in LDS teaching then the classical view. Let’s look at more of what Joseph Smith wrote on this topic.

The next point that Millet makes above is in reference to John 4:24. If Joseph Smith viewed God as an unembodied immaterial spirit in 1835 why would he have changed the one passage that seems be the keystone of the evangelical view that God is a unembodied immaterial spirit? Keep in mind it was during 1831 that Joseph Smith changed the verse. Could it be that Joseph viewed the verse as inconsistent with the revealed knowledge that he had received from God about his nature found both in the Book of Mormon, the revealed Book of Moses now found in Pearl of Great Price and in the Doctrine and Covenants? David Paulsen puts it this way:

Yet what evidence is there for the late development and immaterialist theories? Surprisingly, given the weight these theories have been accorded, I find not one piece of direct evidence that the Prophet Joseph Smith ever asserted that God is nonembodied. From the literature, I have been able to extract only two arguments, which I call (a) the argument from God-as-spirit, and (b) the argument from creedal terminology. The first argument starts with the premise that Joseph and his LDS contemporaries referred to God (or, at least, to God the Father) as a spirit. If so, they must have understood him to be an immaterial or unembodied being. The second argument is a much broader version of argument (a). It begins with the premise that until at least 1835, Mormons often referred to God (or at least God the Father) in language reminiscent of classical Christian creeds. Therefore, they must have understood him to be an immaterial or unembodied being.

Before proceeding further, it will be worthwhile to clarify the logic of these arguments. First, construed as deductive arguments, both are nonsequiturs—their conclusions do not follow logically from their respective premises. Second, understood as inductive arguments, (a) and (b) are weak, and both depend on a third argument (c), which is only implicit. It asserts that in the first several years of the Restoration, there is no record that Joseph taught or Mormons believed that God is embodied. Therefore, no such teaching or belief existed. This argument, which is an argument from silence, is critical to the claim that before 1838 Church members believed God to be immaterial. Only if there were no (or maybe very scant) direct evidence of early belief in an embodied God would a weak inductive inference to a belief in nonembodiment have any credibility. Conversely, if there were considerable direct evidence for early Mormon belief—especially on the part of Joseph Smith—in an embodied deity, the arguments from God-as-spirit, from creedal terminology, and from silence would all be refuted. What, then, does the record show? (92)

The first record to explore is once again the Book of Mormon. Paulsen points out that there are 283 Book of Mormon passages that refer to God’s body or body parts. (93) He also points to three passages that are “especially explicit” in teaching the LDS view of a personage of spirit. Of the three I would like to mention one. In the Book of Ether we read the account of the brother of Jared preparing stones that he hoped would light their ships during their passage across the ocean. In Ether 3:4-6 we find that this request from the Brother of Jared resulted in an astonishing event:

4: And I know, O Lord, that thou hast all power, and can do whatsoever thou wilt for the benefit of man; therefore touch these stones, O Lord, with thy finger, and prepare them that they may shine forth in darkness; and they shall shine forth unto us in the vessels which we have prepared, that we may have light while we shall cross the sea.

5: Behold, O Lord, thou canst do this. We know that thou art able to show forth great power, which looks small unto the understanding of men.

6: And it came to pass that when the brother of Jared had said these words, behold, the Lord stretched forth his hand and touched the stones one by one with his finger. And the veil was taken from off the eyes of the brother of Jared, and he saw the finger of the Lord; and it was as the finger of a man, like unto flesh and blood; and the brother of Jared fell down before the Lord, for he was struck with fear.

So surprised was the Brother of Jared that he saw the finger of the Lord that he fell down in fear. This leads into the following exchange between the brother of Jared and the Lord found in Ether 3:7-16:

7 And the Lord saw that the brother of Jared had fallen to the earth; and the Lord said unto him: Arise, why hast thou fallen?

8 And he saith unto the Lord: I saw the finger of the Lord, and I feared lest he should smite me; for I knew not that the Lord had flesh and blood.

9 And the Lord said unto him: Because of thy faith thou hast seen that I shall take upon me flesh and blood; and never has man come before me with such exceeding faith as thou hast; for were it not so ye could not have seen my finger. Sawest thou more than this?

10 And he answered: Nay; Lord, show thyself unto me.

11 And the Lord said unto him: Believest thou the words which I shall speak?

12 And he answered: Yea, Lord, I know that thou speakest the truth, for thou art a God of truth, and canst not lie.

13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.

14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters.

15 And never have I showed myself unto man whom I have created, for never has man believed in me as thou hast. Seest thou that ye are created after mine own image? Yea, even all men were created in the beginning after mine own image.

16 Behold, this body, which ye now behold, is the body of my spirit; and man have I created after the body of my spirit; and even as I appear unto thee to be in the spirit will I appear unto my people in the flesh.

After the account of this event is given we receive the following editorial comment from Moroni in verse 17:

17 And now, as I, Moroni, said I could not make a full account of these things which are written, therefore it sufficeth me to say that Jesus showed himself unto this man in the spirit, even after the manner and in the likeness of the same body even as he showed himself unto the Nephites.

Regarding these passages David Paulsen comments:

From this text, the following points seem evident: (1) Jesus Christ is God (Ether 3:18); (2) as a spirit, prior to his incarnation, he was nonetheless embodied; (3) his body, though not yet composed of flesh and bones, was strikingly similar in both form and appearance to a human body; and (4) our bodies of flesh and bones are created in the very image of his premortal spirit body, which is thus humanlike in form. From these points, a very significant conclusion can be drawn: both Moroni anciently and presumably Joseph Smith in 1829 as the translator of Moroni’s account understood a spirit to be an embodied person, humanlike in form, even if less tangible than one of flesh and bones. This understanding also finds support in Joseph’s cultural context, as will be shown below. Thus, one would be mistaken to infer that, early on, Joseph (and his LDS contemporaries) must have believed that God is a nonembodied being simply because they referred to him as a spirit. Unlike classical Christians generally, Latter-day Saints did not equate spirit with immateriality. (94)

Now Mr. Jones may argue that this passage refers Jesus and not the Father. However, that argument fails for two reasons. The first is because we are exploring how Latter-day Saints understood a personage of spirit. This passage definitely shows such understanding is not in the way that Mr. Jones accuses. Second, as I have already discussed we understand the Father through the son. Jesus is the express image of the Father (see Hebrews 1:3). They are alike in all ways, both in character and attributes, and in appearance and form. In fact the Fifth Lecture on Faith demonstrates this extremely well in the following way:

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 fullness, 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. (My emphasis)

Clearly the lecture is telling us that the Son, who we have seen had a spirit body that looks just like his physical body, looks like and is in the same shape and form as his Father. Accordingly the personage of the Father has human form just like Jesus. This is perfectly clear and plain from the text. Once again we read from David Paulsen regarding this part of the Fifth Lecture:

The meaning seems clear: both the Father and the Son have humanlike bodies, for both are referred to as personages. And just as man "was formed after [the Son’s] likeness and in His image," so also is the Son "the express image and likeness of the personage of the Father." As already shown, the JST and book of Moses indicate Joseph understood image to signify bodily image.

This conclusion is further reinforced by a still closer analysis of the text, for Joseph not only refers to the Father and the Son as personages, but he also asserts that the Son is in the express image of "the personage of the Father." How should the phrase, "personage of the Father" be understood where personage does not refer to the Father but apparently to something that can be predicated of the Father? Here, I believe, the term refers directly to the Father’s body. Compare the second entry under personage in The Oxford English Dictionary:

2. The body of a person; chiefly with reference to appearance, stature, etc; bodily frame, figure; personal appearance....

1559 R. Hall Life Fisher in Fisher’s Wks. (E.E.T.S.) II. p. lxiij, Doctor Ridley (who was a man of verie little and small personage).

1606 Bryskett Civ. Life 32 Well borne, vertuous, chaste, of tall and comely personage, and well spoken....

1785. Cowper Let. to Lady Hesketh 20-24 Dec., Half a dozen flannel waistcoats...to be worn...next to my personage.

Consistent with Joseph’s 1830 revisions of Genesis 1:26-27 and Genesis 5:1-2, the Lectures on Faith reaffirmed in 1834 that man is created in the image of the body of both the Father and the Son.

What, then, shall be made of the lecture’s referring contrastingly to the Father as "a personage of spirit" and to the Son as "a personage of tabernacle"? Again, Webster’s 1828 dictionary is helpful. It lists "our natural body" as one use of the term tabernacle. Our natural body, I take it, is a body of flesh and bones. If so, the lectures affirm that God the Son has a flesh-and bones body, humanlike in form, while God the Father has a spirit body, also humanlike in form. As mentioned, Joseph later knew that the Father, as well as the Son, has a glorious, incorruptible body of flesh and bone. No doubt, his understanding of the mode of the Father’s embodiment was enlarged and refined as he continued to receive and reflect on revelation. (95)

In the excerpt from Paulsen immediately above he references the JST and the Book of Moses. I have already discussed the JST of John 4:24 but it is worth pointing out again that the meaning of the passage was something entirely different than teaching that God is am immaterial spirit at least in Joseph Smith’s understanding. In connection with Joseph Smith’s understanding of what a personage of spirit is I would like to explore the JST of Genesis 1:26-27 (compare Moses 2:26-27) and Genesis 5:1-2 (compare Moses 6:8-9). First let’s look at JST Genesis 1:26-27:

26 And I, God, made the beasts of the earth, after their kind; and cattle after their kind; and everything which creepeth upon the earth, after his kind. And I, God, saw that all these things were good.

27 And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and it was so.

28 And I, God, said, Let them have dominion over the fishes of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the 29 And I, God, created man in mine own image, in the image of mine Only Begotten created I him; male and female created I them.

We can see from the passage above a number of important points. We see that there are two individuals involved in the creation, both the Father and the Son. Next we learn that man is created after the image of both the Father and the Son. Note that God says He created us in both His image and in the image of His son. Recall that from Ether 3 discussed above we know that Christ’s spirit body looked exactly like his physical body and that we are created in that same image and form. Taking the Book of Mormon passages along with the JST of Genesis 1:26-29 we know that if God created us in His image and in the image of His Son, and if the spirit image of His son is in human like form God must be in human like form whether or not corporeal. Thus, even if Joseph Smith did not know until after 1838 that the Father is corporeal he definitely knew God was embodied and not immaterial spirit as early as 1831.

If this is not enough evidence as to Joseph Smith’s early understanding and teachings about God we can look to his translation of Genesis 5:1-2 found in Moses 6:8-9:

8 Now this prophecy Adam spake, as he was moved upon by the Holy Ghost, and a genealogy was kept of the children of God. And this was the book of the generations of Adam, saying: In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

9 In the image of his own body, male and female, created he them, and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created and became living souls in the land upon the footstool of God. (My emphasis)

Can anything be clearer than the above passage as to how Joseph Smith viewed God as early as 1831? On the one hand we have Mr. Jones relying on one passage in a book (the Lectures on Faith) that was not scripture to make his claim that early Latter-day Saint teaching was the same as creedal theism. On the other hand we have Joseph Smith plainly teaching that we are created after the pattern of an embodied God. I would challenge Mr. Jones to find any place in Latter-day Saint teaching that expounds his view of the trinity in a plain and simple way. As demonstrated above, taken as a whole the Fifth Lecture on Faith does not even do it! Rather, it emphasizes that a personage of spirit is embodied with form and substance. Even in early LDS teachings the doctrine of classical trinitarianism is absent. There is not one sermon that lays it out. Mr. Jones may insist that the LDS scripture do so, but I have already shown that taken as a whole and in context his selectivity and interpretations of the scriptures he uses fail to prove his point. The Protestant view of God is just not there! Contrary to Jones’ assertion that it is are the early germination’s of the full fruition of Joseph Smith’s understanding about God that developed from the first vision in 1820 to the ideas about God presented in 1844. The above fully demonstrates this. To wrap up on this topic another thought from David Paulsen regarding Moses 6:8-9 seems in order.

Evidently, Joseph added the clarifying phrase, "of his own body," to distinguish his understanding of the text from any incorporealist construction. From Joseph’s revision of these biblical texts, it appears clear that in 1830 he understood that both the Father and Son are embodied and that man’s body was made in their image. Moreover, Joseph’s revisions cohere tightly with the passages from the Book of Mormon already discussed. Taken together, they show that Joseph understood the doctrine of divine embodiment at least as early as 1830. He may well have learned it some ten years earlier when the Father and the Son appeared to him in the grove near Palmyra, New York—the starting point of the Restoration. (96)

Jones:

Question #11:
We still believe that God the Father has a spirit. Don't you?
Answer:
No, and that's not what the 1835 D&C says. The verb is being, not having.
It's one thing to have an apple. It would be quite different to be an apple.
You know, if words did not have specific meanings, we'd have a hard time
communicating with each other. And why would God have given us his written
word, and told us to depend on it "to make thee wise unto salvation"(2
Timothy 3:15) if the words were not to be understood?

The above discussion regarding how Joseph Smith understood the term personage of spirit already addresses this. I also discussed that based on Joseph Smith’s teachings on what a personage of spirit is the fact that he may not have known that God is corporeal until later in his ministry is not a problem at all. However, the argument that a corporeal God is spirit as well as physical is not an unreasonable position from an LDS standpoint. Remember it is LDS doctrine we are talking about here. The fact that God and Jesus are both spirit and physical is a reasonable position based on LDS teaching. Earlier in this paper I referred Mr. Jones to Doctrine & Covenants 93. On this topic it is worth looking at part of that revelation here. Keep in mind that this section of the Doctrine &Covenants was revealed to the Prophet in 1833. In Doctrine & Covenants 93:29-34 we read:

29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

30 All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence.

31 Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light.

32 And every man whose spirit receiveth not the light is under condemnation.

33 For man is spirit. The elements are eternal, and spirit and element, inseparably connected, receive a fulness of joy;

34 And when separated, man cannot receive a fulness of joy.

The passage above demonstrates a number of points. It shows that as early as 1833 Joseph Smith taught and believed in the eternality of man as well as God. The doctrine that man is co-eternal with God is unique to Latter-day Saint Christians and was understood very early in the LDS Church. The doctrine that man is co-eternal with God is foreign to the ideas a proponent of classical theism would hold and further demonstrates that Joseph Smith did not teach classical theism in his early ministry. But what else leaps out at us from this passage of scripture? Why we see that corporeal man is also spirit! Further that the elements are eternal is also revealed. Even more we read that spirit and element are connected and inseparable and when separated provide less than the full joy God has in store for his children. That physical matter and spiritual matter must be connected to receive joy is far outside the Greek philosophical ideas entrenched in the orthodox teachings about the trinity that find matter repugnant. To carry the doctrine found in the 1833 revelation one more step, could we suppose that if man is spirit as well as element, and in order to receive a fullness of joy man must continue eternally after the resurrection as element and spirit, that God our Father is also spirit and element? We know that Jesus is spirit and element. We know that we are and will be spirit and element forever after we are resurrected. Does the 1833 revelation indicate that Joseph Smith understood that God was both corporeal and spirit earlier than 1835 even contrary to the Fifth Lecture on Faith on its face? Keep in mind that Joseph Smith may not have written the lecture and that while he may have approved it he may have been less than enthusiastic about including it as being published with his revelations. Obviously the answers to these questions are not conclusive. Regardless D&C 93 is additional evidence that Joseph Smith’s understanding about God was far different from the classical theistic even in early LDS history.

As for Mr. Jones comments about words having specific meanings, I would reply that of course words have specific meanings. However, the interpretations of words do not. If everything is as cut and dry as Mr. Jones statement above makes it appear why all the diversity among Christian religions today? Of course the words of God in the Bible are to be understood. However, who has the correct understanding? I may understand verses differently than Mr. Jones? A Catholic may understand passages of scripture in a way different form both Mr. Jones and myself. Who is right? And while Mr. Jones may quote 2 Timothy 3:15 to make a position that it is the Bible only that makes us wise unto salvation, keep in mind that the Holy Scriptures Paul is referring to in this verse is not the New Testament. Rather they are the books of scripture that are now part of the Old Testament. Does that mean the revelation given through the Apostles that now make up the New Testament were not important? Most likely Timothy did not have them or study them. You see, it is critical to understand that the early Christian Church was a living, vibrant, growing church that not only studied the existing scripture but also received new scripture. This is why Paul also taught that the Church organization of apostles, prophets, evangelists and teachers were critical to the unifying of the faith (Eph. 4:11-13) of which Christianity is far from. It was through those with apostolic authority that scripture came. And to state “And why would God have given us his written word, and told us to depend on it” ignores totally the controversy that exists today and has existed in the past over exactly what those words in the Bible mean.

In order to truly understand God’s words I would add the Holy Ghost to the scriptures and apostles, prophets, etc. Remember that Jesus told us that the Holy Ghost would teach us all things (John 14:26). An understanding of God’s words contained in the Bible is not quite as simple as Mr. Jones suggests. A unity in the understanding of those words is not even enjoyed in Protestant Christianity or even in the evangelical strain of Protestantism. Besides I would ask what exactly qualifies as God’s word? This is really not a topic for this paper. However, it is a question that needs answering by Mr. Jones along with evidence to back up his position that only the books in the Protestant Bible constitute God’s exclusive and only word. That process should include at least a description of how the initial autographs were received and recorded and how and why they were included in the canon. Additionally he should explain what became of other writings that were at one point considered part of the canon but no longer are and explain why certain books were at one point not considered part of the canon and now are. (97)

Jones:

By the way, in all the Standard Works (scriptures) and other official
publications of the Mormon Church, through 1835, there is no mention of God
the Father being anything but an invisible personage of spirit. (1835 D&C,
p.53, 62; Colossians 1:15-JST; 1 Timothy 1:17-JST; John 4:24; Luke 24:37,
39-JST; Alma 18:26-28, 22:7-11)

By the way, there is no mention in the Bible of God being a disembodied spirit that is co-substantial with the other two members of the Godhead as the creeds define God, anywhere. In fact there is much to demonstrate that God was viewed in anthropomorphic form. Many of those passages have been discussed above. Further discussion of the topic will be saved for another time.

Now, as I begin respond to the comments immediately above as they relate to LDS teachings about God and the scriptures Mr. Jones cites let me pose two questions to Mr. Jones:

1: What other “official publications of the Mormon Church through 1835 did you search that specifically refer to God as an “invisible personage of spirit?” I have performed a search for this term and found it in none of the sources that are found on the GospeLink LDS Library. The term is not found in the Standard Works of the LDS Church and it is not found in the official publications of the Church. It is not even found in the any of the publications of the LDS Church writers at any point in time, at least as far as the ones contained in the GospeLink LDS Library, which are extensive. It is not found in the Lectures on Faith, the critical document Mr. Jones rests his argument on. The term personage of spirit is in that lecture but the connotation of the term as found in the Fifth Lecture has already been shown to mean something entirely different than Mr. Jones thinks it does. A search of the GopseLink library for the term “personage of spirit” results in only one occurrence in the LDS Standard Works. It is found in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22 and has direct reference to the Holy Ghost. The term also resulted in 110 occurrences in writings of various general authorities of the Church. In only one instance was the term personage of spirit used to refer to the Father. That occurrence was in the Fifth Lecture on Faith, which we have discussed in depth. Also there is a discussion of the term as it refers to the Father in the Fifth Lecture on Faith by Bruce R. McConkie. (98) All other instances refer to either the Holy Ghost or the pre-mortal Jesus Christ. One instance refers to Lucifer as a personage of spirit. I performed the same search of official LDS publications. Once again the only place the term personage of spirit as it refers to the Father was found in the publication of the Fifth Lecture found in the May 1835 volume of the Messenger and Advocate. Mr. Jones your statement above fails when put to the test as far as the term invisible personage of spirit, or personage of spirit, goes. It is found in only one place! It does not even mean what you think! An exposition about God the Father being a disembodied spirit in the classical sense just cannot be found in LDS teaching, anywhere, anytime, period.

2: Why, Mr. Jones, did you not reference the JST of John 4:24 in your list of scriptures that you think teach that Latter-day Saints believed God to be a disembodied spirit? You referenced the JST for other biblical passages that you think seem to back up your position. You have done so through your entire paper. Is it not just a tad bit suspect to ignore the JST of John 4:24 when it is a passage that is a direct contradiction of what you say Joseph Smith taught about God in early LDS history as I have already shown, and also overturns what you are trying illustrate in your statement immediately above?.

As for the other passages of scripture Mr. Jones lists above I thought it worth briefly looking at each one. First his reference to pages out of the “1835 D&C” are actually from the Fifth Lecture on Faith and have been discussed. Next let’s look at Colossians 1:15 and 1 Timothy 1:17 (where the KJV and the JST are the same) because both contain similar language. Colossians 1:15 states in reference to Jesus“ Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.” But does this passage say that God the Father is an invisible spirit personage? Not really. As I write this paper Mr. Jones is currently invisible to me as I am to him because we are not in each other’s presence. Besides how could Jesus be the image of something invisible? Rather this passage, as well as the one from 1 Timothy 1:17 is saying the Father is not present with us and that he is generally not seen by the general populous of the human race. The book of Hebrews indicates that Moses actually saw “him who is invisible.” Thus it is obvious that the passages are not saying that God is an invisible immaterial unembodied spirit. As Richard Lloyd Andersen puts it the word invisible is better rendered unseen:

In writing "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), Paul was not stressing "invisible" as much as he was Christ's "image"—the Father become visible through the Son. "Invisible" has English connotations of "not able to be seen," though it simply negates "seen" and would better be rendered "unseen." The Father is "unseen" by mortals now but is seen by those who dwell with him, and he was seen by chosen prophets to whom he has appeared. (99)

Much more could be provide on these passages but this will suffice for my purposes. As for Luke 24:37, 39 (where the KJV and the JST are the same) I am puzzled as to Mr. Jones use of it here. How does this passage demonstrate that God the Father is an invisible spirit? All this shows is that the apostles thought that Jesus was a spirit or rather a ghost. Interestingly enough if the apostles’ thought that Jesus was a spirit and they could see him, they obviously understood that a spirit is embodied. This presents a view of spirit much different than that of classical theism. Again Richard Lloyd Anderson writes:

Paul emphasizes that Christ as a divine person was physical. Paul drives the point home because of the false doctrines about Christ. Through "the body of his flesh" came the great atonement for sins and the means of the Saints' perfection (Col. 1:22). Now resurrected, Christ has "all fulness" dwelling in him (Col. 1:19). This statement is not philosophical, but anthropomorphic. Paul was certain that Christ existed in his resurrected form, since "God . . . raised him from the dead" (Col. 2:12) and since he was physically present "on the right hand of God" (Col. 3:1). Confirmed by 1 Corinthians 15 and Philippians 3, Paul's Colossian testimony is that Christ's mortal form was outwardly the same as his resurrected state—there is not a hint that he might have set aside that glorious body, which is the "image of the unseen God" (Col. 1:15, JB). Yet 84 percent of a Utah sampling of Protestant ministers agreed that "God is an immaterial Being without form or bodily parts." This cannot be true if Christ revealed God. Nor can it be true if the physical, resurrected Christ is a part of the Godhead. By the authority of modern revelation, Joseph Smith solemnly declared, "That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones." (100)

As for Mr. Jones use of Alma 18:26-28 and 22:7-11 I found it so misplaced that I was tempted to ignore responding to it at all. It is clear from the passages that Ammon and Aaron are both simply teaching from a frame of reference that the Lamanite students they were instructing understood. In their apostate religion the Lamanites had come to view God as the “Great Spirit.” To hold to a position that these passages show that the Book of Mormon teaches a classical theistic view of the Father as an immaterial spirit is an act of desperation. Further, even if Ammon and Aaron viewed God as a spirit I have already shown that the Book of Mormon teaches that a spirit is embodied which is a very different view from what Mr. Jones says it teaches. Additionally this passage may be referring to Jesus Christ who at this time was a spirit, albeit an embodied spirit.

To summarize this section, none of the passages that Mr. Jones cited make his point. The statement that official LDS publications through 1835 teach nothing but God as an invisible personage of spirit is not demonstrated at all by the existing corpus of material available.

Jones:

Question #12:
How can we be sure what Joseph Smith meant by "the Father being a personage
of spirit?" He's not here to explain it to us.

This is another question I doubt most Latter-day Saints would make. Honestly, to me this approach just seems a bit forced.

Jones:

Answer:
Joseph's not here to explain it, but D&C 130:22 tells us that...
"the Holy Ghost does not have a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage
of spirit."
Could it be said any clearer? And there's another important testimony. Jesus
Christ himself said..."a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me have." (Luke 24:39-JST)

My answer is not only does D&C 130:22 tell us but so does Ether 3:4-6, and 7-16 as well as JST Genesis 1:26-27 (Moses 2:26-27), JST Genesis 5:1-2 (Moses 6:8-9) and the Fifth Lecture. That these passages demonstrate a very different view of God than the classical Trinitarian view has already been discussed above. I have allowed for the fact that Joseph may not have totally understood God’s corporeal nature in 1835 and before, but I have also shown that he definitely taught that God was embodied and that the term personage of spirit does not (and did not) mean to Latter-day Saints what it means to Mr. Jones. Additionally we can see from 1 Nephi 10:17 and 11:1, 4-7, 11 that early LDS teaching also demonstrates that the Holy Ghost is an embodied spirit in the form of a man. David Paulsen comments on this:

In a third notable passage, the Book of Mormon tells of Nephi’s encounter with "the Spirit of the Lord" and explicitly describes "the Spirit" as being embodied in humanlike form, thus further refuting argument (a)’s equation of "spirit" with nonembodiment in early Mormon doctrine. Somewhat problematic, however, is the question of referent. Whom does the phrase "the Spirit of the Lord" denote? While it might refer to the premortal Christ or a spirit messenger from the Lord, Sidney Sperry has argued that it refers to the Holy Ghost. In considering Sperry’s arguments, let us first note the context in which the reported encounter is set. The encounter ensued when Nephi sought personal confirmation of his father’s spiritual manifestations.

I... was desirous also that I might see, and hear, and know of these things, by the power of the Holy Ghost....As I sat pondering in mine heart I was caught away...into an exceedingly high mountain.... And the Spirit said unto me: Believest thou that thy Father saw the tree of which he hath spoken? And I said: Yea, thou knowest that I believe all the words of my father. And when I had spoken these words, the Spirit cried with a loud voice, saying: Hosanna to the Lord, the most high God.... And blessed art thou, Nephi, because thou believest in the Son of the most high God.... And... thou shalt also behold a man descending out of heaven, and him shall ye witness; and after ye have witnessed him ye shall bear record that it is the Son of God. (1 Ne. 10:17; 11:1, 4-7)

Observe that the Spirit shouts "Hosanna to . . . the most high God" and commands Nephi to witness and to bear record of "the Son of the most High God," referring in the third person to each of these members of the Godhead.

When the Spirit showed Nephi the tree of life, Nephi asked to know the interpretation thereof—

for I spake unto him as a man speaketh; for I beheld that he was in the form of a man; yet nevertheless, I knew that it was the Spirit of the Lord; and he spake unto me as a man speaketh with another. (1 Ne. 11:11)

Nephi reports that while the Spirit of the Lord "was in the form of a man," he was a divine being and therefore not a mere man. That he was in "the form of a man" indicates that the Spirit of the Lord was embodied. Thus it seems that Nephi saw the spirit body of the Holy Ghost just as the Brother of Jared had seen the spirit body of Christ. (101)

Thus we see even in early LDS teachings an understanding about God that is foreign to the creeds of Trinitarianism. Can these passages be any clearer? Beyond a doubt, Mr. Jones has missed early LDS teachings that absolutely refute his position.

In essence I have completed the task I set out to do. I have demonstrated the accuracy of my premises that I introduced in the beginning of my paper. Recall that they are:

1. The Lectures were not considered scripture and were not on par with the revelations contained in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants.

2. The question of authorship of The Lectures is far from certain and in fact studies demonstrate that Sidney Rigdon was the primary writer of the Lectures.

3. Regardless of the outcome of items 1 and 2 above The Lectures do not teach what Mr. Jones insist they do, that Joseph Smith taught the God of classical theism in early LDS history.

Additionally I have responded to the other sources that Mr. Jones has attempted to use to demonstrate classical theism was taught in early LDS teaching demonstrating the errors of his claim.

In my view the pages above have demonstrated all three of my points regarding the Lectures to be correct while at the same time showing that Mr. Jones has missed evidence to the contrary and applied his own paradigm of classical theism steeped in Greek Hellenistic philosophy on the interpretations of unique LDS scripture and other LDS writings. This paper could end here. The remaining comments by Mr. Jones in his paper have very little bearing on the topic we have been discussing. They are however a fine example of anti-Mormon rhetoric and worth addressing to a certain extent. Accordingly I will continue in a tedious attempt to respond to a few more of Mr. Jones comments and wrap this treatise up.

Jones:

Question #13:
Don't you realize that those books are written by imperfect men who sometimes
made mistakes? That's why we have a living prophet, to correct any confusion.

Once again the blundering Latter-day Saint is forced into asking a question that few if any Latter-day Saints would ask. Our poor Mormon has been pasted and is now backed into a corner, so he/she is desperate and looking for any possible way out. Come on. This convenient way of herding the arguments that Mr. Jones uses in order to walk the reader down his path is tiresome and not scholarly one bit. Additionally, the position Jones is putting forward is that the Lectures on Faith were scripture and what was taught in them are now viewed as a mistake. I have shown they were not scripture and even if they were they fit nicely into LDS doctrine in 1835 and now.

Jones:

Answer

That's not what LDS Prophets used to teach about scripture. For example
Joseph Smith said...
"I hope you will search the Scriptures to see whether these things are not
also consistent with those things which the ancient Prophets and Apostles
have written." (TPJS, p. 29; A-8)
"I never told you I was perfect; but there is no error in the revelations
which I have taught." (TPJS, p. 368; A-8)

In my view this distorts the whole image of the position of the LDS Church in regards to this issue. This question seems to set up a straw man thus presenting a distortion that does not exist. Mr. Jones then answers his own question by saying, “That's not what LDS Prophets used to teach about scripture.” Well who said the LDS Church had changed what they teach about scripture? Why Mr. Jones himself. First he makes his pretended Latter-day Saint ask a question as if it is an official LDS position then he answers it himself with an answer that makes it appear that there was some change. He then quotes Joseph Smith to show a prior position that supposedly has changed. The problem here is this position has never changed! The LDS Church still relies on the Standard Works as their bright line measurement for doctrine. If a teaching is outside the scope of this standard it can be set aside unless it is presented unanimously by the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles for ratification to the entire Church. I have touched on this above. Thus we still compare all teachings to the Scriptures for consistency. Many Prophets and others have emphasized this concept. (102) By the way, the first quote by Joseph Smith used above is from a letter to Moses C. Nickerson written on November 19, 1833. (103) Its use here is totally out of the context of the letter in which it was written. Taken in context of the entire letter it really has nothing to do with Mr. Jones question. Besides, as already stated there is nothing in LDS teachings that would disagree with the statement.

As for the second quote by Joseph Smith above we once again would readily agree. Now I know that Mr. Jones is setting us up for what he calls “radical changes” in the revelations that Joseph Smith made as his worked progressed. Regarding this issue it must be clear that the Latter-day Saint view of revelation is not necessarily one of divine dictation. Whether the editing Joseph made to the very revelations he had received were “radical” is matter of opinion and beyond the topic of this paper. Later I will refer the reader to a resource they can explore on their own regarding the Book of Commandments and Doctrine and Covenants and the editing process the revelations went through. Never the less we are entirely comfortable with the Prophet’s statement regarding the lack of errors in the revelations. Besides, I have demonstrated that it is Mr. Jones exegesis of the sources he uses to prove his point that are in error. Thus the point is moot. Nobody has made the straw man statement that “those books are written by imperfect men who sometimes made mistakes.” The fact is that as presented to the Church the revelations were not in error. Any changes made were not in secret and the official Church position is still to use the Standard Works as the barometer for acceptable doctrine and to present new doctrine to the body of the Church. Remember ours is not a closed canon, nor is there anything to indicate that the early Christian Church viewed the canon as closed.

Jones:

Joseph Fielding Smith agreed, saying...
"There was no need for eliminating, changing or adjusting any part to make it
fit; but each new revelation on doctrine and priesthood fitted in its place
perfectly to complete the whole structure, as it had been prepared by the
Master Builder." (DS vol. 1, p. 170; A-8)

This statement refers not only to the scriptures or revelations, but also to the whole step by step process of the gospel restoration. Joseph Fielding Smith opens up his remarks that surround this quote by stating “There is a beautiful thread of consistency running through the scheme of gospel restoration. Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery could not foresee the end from the beginning, but the Lord was the Architect, and made known to them little by little, as knowledge and organization were needed, until the perfect structure of the Church was restored.” (104) Clearly more than the revelations were being referred to here. As for the doctrine and revelation fitting into place, the statement is correct as far as the presentation to the Church of the canonized scripture. Any editing was accomplished with full disclosure. It seems, the quote is used to defend a straw man set. Regarding this claim I would ask Mr. Jones to provide sources that demonstrate that we believe that mistakes in the canonized scripture were made and we think the living prophet must correct those errors.

Jones:

As for the living prophet, if Joseph Smith was in error about essential
doctrines while he was the living prophet, and other prophets continued in
those errors for 86 years, how does it help to have a living prophet today
who is also a man capable of making the same kinds of error?

First question-Who said Joseph Smith was in error about essential doctrine? Second-Who said that other prophets continued those errors for 86 years? Third-Who said that the living prophet was making errors? Why only Mr. Jones. Let me pose Mr. Jones a few questions here. How was the Biblical canon compiled? Were the original autographs used in the process? Was Paul, Peter, Matthew, Luke or James infallible? What was the process the early apostles used in developing their writings? Did they receive divine dictation in the process of writing what later became known as scripture? If they did then why does some of what they wrote contradict what others wrote? Why did Paul call Peter on the carpet regarding circumcision and other points of the law being imposed on the gentile? How did they go about working out this dispute? Were these men perfect? Was Peter a fraud? Did they make mistakes? What was their canonized measuring rode for proving all things? What scriptures did the Bereans search daily? (Acts 17:11) Was it the New Testament? The Old Testament? Both? Did they search writings that were considered authoritative that we do not have now? Were the scriptures clear? If yes then why were there so many different groups in early Christianity viewing Christ in different ways? Why did it take over 300 years to settle the Christological controversies of early Christianity? Why did that settlement result in a doctrine about the Godhead that clearly is full of Greek philosophical ideas? Why were the questions settled by a numerous councils and debates rather than divine revelation? Were the scriptures edited at all in order to back up the “Orthodox” or rather the winner’s position? (105) Please Mr. Jones and others of his persuasion, consider these questions carefully.

Really the question Mr. Jones poses above is meaningless because it is phrased in connection with a point that is not taught by Latter-day Saints. There is no doubt that we do not, and never have held our prophets and apostles to be infallible. This point is made clearly in the quote from B.H. Roberts found in footnote 102. However, their teachings that are in line with accepted scripture, or presented to the entire Church and then canonized are correct and continue to be held as such.

Jones:

QUESTION #14
If the prophet leads me astray, and I am sincere, don't you believe Heavenly
Father will understand that I was being faithful to the best of my knowledge ?
Answer:
LDS Prophet. Heber J. Grant did say...
"...you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever
tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless
you for it." (Marion G. Romney, Conference Report, Oct. 1960)
In Isaiah 9:14-16-JST, however, God said...
"the Lord will cut off from Israel head and tail...and the prophet that
teacheth lies, he is the tail. For the leaders of this people cause them to
err; and they that are led of them are destroyed."

Again I highly doubt that any Latter-day Saint would posit this question in such a way. As for his use of the ellipses above let’s take a look at it in full context. The setting of the quote was an anecdote given by Marion G. Romney in a conference talk. The story was given as an illustration as part of one of a number of ways Elder Romney suggests that we can distinguish truth form error. He is pointing out that we can know truth when it comes through the proper authority and ties that into the LDS view about the position of the Presiding High Priest or President of the Church. As part of his ideas he relates a personal experience that took place twenty or thirty years previously. Mr. Jones quotes it to make it appear that it was directly from President Grant. Elder Romney said:

4. Now the fourth and last test I shall mention is: Does it come through the proper Church channel? We read in the 42nd Section of the Doctrine and Covenants: "Again I say unto you, that it shall not be given to any one to go forth to preach my gospel, or to build up my church, except he be ordained by some one who has authority, and it is known to the church that he has authority and has been regularly ordained by the heads of the church." (D. & C. 42:11.) In the light of this divinely established order, how can any man accept the doctrine of authority from some secret source unknown to the Church? The Lord could not have made it any plainer that one's authority must come through the established order of the Church, and the President of the Church stands at the head of that order. The Lord has placed him there.

"The duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood," He says, "is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—" (D. & C. 107:91) Now one of Moses' greatest callings was to be a law-giver, to declare the Word of God. Only the President can declare the doctrines of the Church.

The revelation continues: "The duty of the President of the office of the High Priesthood is to preside over the whole church, and to be like unto Moses—

"Behold, here is wisdom; yea, to be a seer, a revelator, a translator, and a prophet, having all the gifts of God which he bestows upon the head of the church." (D. & C. 107:91-92.)

In the revelation the Lord gave to the Prophet in answer to his inquiry about the stone which Hiram Page had, he said, speaking of the president of the Church): "Wherefore, meaning the church, thou shalt give heed unto all his words and commandments which he shall give unto you as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me;

"For his word ye shall receive, as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." (D. & C. 21:4-5)

Such is the obligation of this Priesthood with respect to our present Prophet, Seer, and Revelator, President David O. McKay. "By doing these things the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory." (D. & C. 21:6)

Now, brethren, if we will keep these things in mind, we shall not be deceived by false teachings. I remember years ago when I was a bishop I had President Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting, I drove him home. At that time there was a great deal of criticism against the President of the Church because of a front-page editorial some of you may remember. We talked about it. When we got to his home I got out of the car and went up on the porch with him. Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." (My Emphasis)

I have thought much about that. I remember that counselors in the Presidency have been deceived. I remember that members of the Twelve have been deceived and left the Church, and men in every other Council in the Church have been deceived. But there has never been a President of the Church, and according to President Grant, and I believe him, there never will be a President of this Church who will lead the people astray.

We need not be led astray, my brethren. The safest way to avoid being led astray is to magnify our Priesthood. We should go on our knees, each one of us, morning and evening, and plead with Almightv God to keep us in the way of magnifying our callings in this great Priesthood. We should live righteously. We should resist every temptation of lust. When we harbor lustful thoughts and participate in lustful practices, we cannot see these great principles clearly, and we get into the dark.

If, in addition to living righteously, we will study and learn what the Lord has said and apply the tests I have suggested, we shall never go astray. God help us, I pray, that we shall remain true and faithful ourselves, and help all of the members of the Church to see clearly, thereby placing themselves among those who take the Holy Spirit for their guide and are not deceived, in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Clearly in the full context of the remarks a different picture than Mr. Jones paints comes to light. Note that Mr. Jones left out the critical sentence “Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." (My Emphasis) Elder Romney was not condoning following a prophet in error nor was President Grant insinuating that such would happen. And even if he was the setting for the anecdotal comments can hardly be taken as an official position. In other words Elder Romney was relating the story to illustrate that the president and prophet would not lead the people astray, and not that we should follow a false prophet and still be blessed. Thus there is no need to respond to Mr. Jones use of the Isaiah passage, as it is once again an attempted application of a scripture to an erroneous premise.

Jones:

Have you really been faithful to the best of your knowledge, or has it been
to the best of your feelings?
God once said, of the Israelites...
"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." (Hosea 4:6-JST)
Please, don't leave this to chance. God will not be mocked. He has warned us
over and over to use the intellect he gave us to discern truth from error,
not to depend on feelings but to compare everything to what He has revealed
in the past to make sure it stands the test. I know the Church urges you to
depend on feelings, but is that God's way?

This is the absolutely most tiresome, ludicrous and pompous statement, position and argument that anti-Mormons make. And they make it incessantly, ad-nauseam. I tire of it. In essence the critic who uses it is saying the Latter-day Saint Christians are stupid and lack intelligence. It insinuates that Latter-day Saints do not study out their own doctrine and rely on some emotional football game sensation to decide the validity of their belief system. It says that evangelical Christians are the ones who really study things out and are the ones that are smart, relying on only their own intellect to discern truth form error. I wonder if they have forgotten that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 12: 3 “Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.” Did you get that? Even Paul said that the only way that one can say that Jesus is the Lord is to have the Holy Ghost reveal it to them.

How does that revelation come for the evangelical who is so terribly smart and discriminate that they portray the stupid Mormon as determining their eternal salvation upon a feeling that is purely an emotional event. I wonder about the evangelical experience of an altar call. What prompts an individual to walk forward and supposedly confess Christ unto salvation? Is it a feeling or prompting by the Spirit? Has the confessor spent the time necessary to be the diligent student of the scripture that Mr. Jones insists his strain of Christianity to be? Having attended numerous such events I have to say, that in my experience, the answer is no. The confessor usually is fairly ignorant of the scripture. Rather something has moved them to action. Actually I have found the atmosphere of such meetings more “emotion” charged and more along the lines of an athletic event than any experience I have had in the LDS Church. I would encourage Mr. Jones and all critics of the LDS Church to drop this silly condescending approach. It is highly offensive and just not the case. For example, a friend of mine, Mark Ellison, has written:

I am SO tired of this bit of specious rhetoric. I hashed this over with three evangelic students at the University of Kansas a couple months back. I asked one, "How do you know the Bible is true?" He described the clarity of mind it brought him, and the feeling of peace. When we got done, I think he and his friends realized that they couldn't malign my "feelings" without also undermining their own claims to have experienced impressions of God's will. I've pasted below some comments I wrote a while back, and am re-posting it here because many on the list may not have seen it:

You badly misrepresent LDS belief about "feelings." You wrote: "While the Church promotes feelings about the Book of Mormon, Joseph Smith, the missionary discussions, and almost every other aspect of Church life, others promote faith, with or without feelings."

First, let me ask you a few questions: Do you believe God answers prayers? Do you believe God "calls" people to do things-enter the ministry, visit a friend in need, pray for strength or direction? If so, I don't think you can discredit the feelings, promptings, or impressions that Latter-day Saints have had without also undermining everyone else's experiences with divine direction. The two disciples who met Christ on Emmaus road said, "Did not our heart burn within us, while he talked with us by the way, and while he opened to us the scriptures?" (Luke 24:32). If you had been there, would you have commented that those feelings were unimportant? On the day of Pentecost, people in Jerusalem were "pricked in their hearts" at the preaching of Peter (Acts 2:37). Would you have leapt to your feet and warned them not to trust their emotions? John Wesley, one of the fathers of the Methodist movement, attended a meeting of a religious society and had a conversion experience in which he felt his heart "strangely warmed" (Stanley Ayling, _John Wesley_, William Collins Publ., 1979, p. 93). Would you have cautioned him to beware of anything like a "burning in the bosom"? How many Christians are you willing to tear down to get to the Latter-day Saints? Do you really want to be in the faith-destroying business?

Second, there is a difference between revelation from God and mere human emotions. To borrow your words again, "any real Christian is more serious than" to suppose otherwise.

Third, Latter-day Saints believe that spiritual impressions are very subtle, and generally do not come in the form of overpowering feelings. God speaks, as the Bible observes, in "a still small voice" (1 Kings 19:12). Mature Latter-day Saints understand this, and I think mature Christians of many denominations do, too. "The sheep hear his voice... the sheep follow him: for they know his voice" (John 10:3-4).

You also wrote: "While the Church promotes feelings as evidence of truth, others promote Bible teachings as the truth." Contrary to what you have stated, we believe that the evidence of truth-indeed, the source of all truth-is not our feelings, not our reasoning, not even the Bible or the Book of Mormon, but God. (106)

Daniel Peterson, another friend of mine has responded to this same criticism in this way:

I stake my eternal destiny on the revelations of God, including those that

have come to me personally. I am not talking here about mere feelings. I

am talking about the testimony of the Holy Spirit. That you have

apparently not received the revelation that I have does not make my

experience any the less real, nor does it make it imaginary. Just as you

are not the standard for rationality against which I must be judged and,

inevitably, found wanting, you are not the standard of religious experience

to whom I must be compared and conformed. (107)

Now Mr. Jones, please provide us with the pleasure of with some sources that show us that the Church urges us to depend on feelings in order to know the truth and that they want us to rely only on feelings. In the mean time I will provide some sources that in fact teach something far differently. For starters the following passages form the Doctrine and Covenants outline the true LDS view of this concept of searching for truth:

D&C 88:118

118 And as all have not faith, seek ye diligently and teach one another words of wisdom; yea, seek ye out of the best books words of wisdom; seek learning, even by study and also by faith.

D&C 109:14

14 And do thou grant, Holy Father, that all those who shall worship in this house may be taught words of wisdom out of the best books, and that they may seek learning even by study, and also by faith, as thou hast said;

D&C 88:79-80

77 And I give unto you a commandment that you shall teach one another the doctrine of the kingdom.

78 Teach ye diligently and my grace shall attend you, that you may be instructed more perfectly in theory, in principle, in doctrine, in the law of the gospel, in all things that pertain unto the kingdom of God, that are expedient for you to understand;

79 Of things both in heaven and in the earth, and under the earth; things which have been, things which are, things which must shortly come to pass; things which are at home, things which are abroad; the wars and the perplexities of the nations, and the judgments which are on the land; and a knowledge also of countries and of kingdoms—

80 That ye may be prepared in all things when I shall send you again to magnify the calling whereunto I have called you, and the mission with which I have commissioned you.

In the forward to the book Answers to Gospel Questions by Joseph Fielding Smith we read:

The Apostle Peter wrote in his first general epistle to the Saints in the Meridian of Time, "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear." (1 Peter 3:15)

The Apostle Paul gave similar advice in his epistle to the Colossian Saints wherein he wrote: "Let your speech be alway with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6)

As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints the Lord has admonished us to gain knowledge and understanding of gospel principles that we, too, may "be ready always to give an answer to every man" for our faith in the restored gospel. We have been commanded to "seek learning, even by study and also by faith." (D&C 88:118) (108)

Wow, this almost sounds like an evangelical! Imagine that from a stupid feeling follower Mormon. Are you getting a sense and how really silly this feeling argument is? Now there is much more that I could provide but I think I am beating this one to death a bit. Besides, there is more of the same silliness to follow below.

Jones:

Consider, if you will, the following passages of scripture:

"He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he
shall be delivered." (Proverbs 28:26-JST)
"Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own
understanding." (Proverbs 3:5-JST)
"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the
ways of death." (Proverbs 14:12-JST)
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." (1 Thessalonians 5:21-JST)
"Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of
God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world." (1 John
4:1-JST)
"...faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." (Romans
10:17-JST)
"Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God." (Matt.
22:29-JST)
"...if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light
in them." (Isaiah 8:20-JST)
"[The Bereans] were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they
received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures
daily, whether those things were so." (Acts 17:11-JST)

As for the verse above we have, we do and we will continue. As for the Bereans I would ask to what words or scripture did they compare the words they were receiving? Did they believe in continuing revelation through the mouths of the apostles? Did they have the New Testament to compare those words to? The answer is no since at this time the New Testament did not exist nor did the Old Testament as we now know it. If the existing words of the prophets were their bright line test did they not find some of the everlasting covenants that the Gospel of Christ caused to be finished in those writings? Did they question why those everlasting covenants were being done away with? Did they understand the concept of the three personages of the Godhead through those existing scriptures? Or rather did they understand that an apostle of God bearing the power and authority of God just might bring forth ideas that have not yet been revealed but still build upon the previous revelations? Did they accept Paul as such a man? Or rather, similar to the latter day evangelical, were they so focused on the current scripture that they could not delight in the new revelation of the New Testament scripture that was at that very time being revealed? Hard words I know but this frankly is how I perceive the evangelical who uses this spurious argument. To repeat Mark Ellison’s closing remarks above “Contrary to what you have stated, we believe that the evidence of truth-indeed, the source of all truth-is not our feelings, not our reasoning, not even the Bible or the Book of Mormon, but God.”

Jones:

"And I [Paul] went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that
gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of
reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain." (Galatians
2:2-JST)

Did you get that last verse? The Apostle Paul, who received the Gospel
directly from the Lord himself, didn't merely trust feelings, or even visual
revelation, without making sure that it was in agreement with what had been
revealed to those apostles who went before him.

Interestingly what those apostles had said before him came by revelation and were significantly different from much of what was currently had by those to whom they were preaching. Additionally Paul said he went up by revelation to preach. Mr. Jones, how did he receive that revelation? Was it a still small voice? Was it a prompting? Did he rely on the whisperings of the Spirit to guide him? How does revelation come? How did you decide to begin “ministering” to Latter-day Saints? What lead you to that decision? How is a person called to evangelize or pastor in the evangelical flavor of Christianity?

Also I should thank Mr. Jones for bringing this up because it supports two positions that Latter-day Saints hold to. First is that of continuous revelation. Clearly Paul believed in it because he experienced it himself as noted in the passage above. Nowhere does Paul ever teach of a closed canon. Second is that of authority in the Church. Even though Paul received his call by way of a vision of Jesus Christ he still was submissive to the authority of the apostles before him. Did you get that Mr. Jones? Paul believed in an organization of structure that is very different than that found in the evangelical community today. Additionally he did not teach that one gets authority from the Bible or any other scripture. He went to the existing authorities that were the living oracles of God.

Jones:

Paul also said that even he had no authority to change the gospel which he
had first preached: "even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one
we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned!" (Gal 1:8-JST)

Yes of course, the old favorite stand by scripture that anti-Mormons love to throw at Latter-day Saints. I wonder if it has ever occurred to those who use it in such a way that it can be used against them in the same way. But what was Paul referring to here? Was he referring to all the doctrine of Christianity that had been revealed or would yet be revealed? What is the definition of gospel in this verse? Clearly it is the good news of Jesus Christ and him crucified and resurrected. It is the good news of his atoning sacrifice for us, of his grace, mercy and love in redeeming us from our sins thus bringing salvation to us all. Latter-day Saint Christians hold to all of this. Accordingly Mr. Jones use of it to insist that Latter-day Saints are preaching another gospel is in error. Really when a critic of the LDS Church uses this passage they are saying “you believe and preach a different doctrine than I do so you are wrong. My interpretation of the Bible is the right one so you are a cult and condemned.” I guess that Latter-day Saints could take the same position and reverse it with the same application on evangelicals. Latter-day Saints are very comfortable that their doctrines and teachings are well in line with this passage and thus have no need to fear.

Jones:

Joseph Smith evidently agreed when he said:
"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... (TPJS, p.264)
Doctrine and Covenants contains a commandment...
"...that you rely on the things which are written..." (D&C 18:3)
Joseph Fielding Smith reiterated that commandment:
"My words, and the teachings of any other member of the Church, high or low,
if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us
have this matter clear. We have accepted the four standard works as the
measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man's doctrine."
(DS, vol. 3, p. 203; A-8)
"The doctrines of false teachers will not stand the test when tried by the
accepted standards of measurement, the scriptures." (DS, vol. 1, p.188, A-9)
So, are we to test truth by feelings or by comparing new revelation to the
existing word of God? How can we test a new prophet's revelations against
scripture if we allow him to rewrite scripture to fit his message

Mr. Jones is using the quotes above to once again attempt to prove his own false premise, which is that the LDS Church basically ignores the scriptures and prior revelations in determining the truth. Since I have shown that that claim is flat out false and its use by Mr. Jones is a straw man there is really no point in discussing the items above further. Even so, I will make a few points.

Nobody disagrees with the quotes Jones is using here. The quotes above are further evidence that the Church does not teach us to “depend on feelings.” To search, study and pray for confirmation by revelation from God through the Holy Ghost, yes, to rely simply on feelings, no. As for Jones accusatory question that the prophets rewrite the scripture to fit their message I have addressed this all above as it relates to the main issue of this paper which is the claim that Joseph Smith taught a classical theistic Godhead and later changed that position. The scriptures Jones claims teach this view are still intact. They have not been changed. Perhaps Mr. Jones is referring to the editing process the revelations in the Book of Commandments underwent when published in the 1835 Doctrine and Covenants. Probably he is also referring to the Lectures which he erroneously insists are scripture and which I have shown are not and do not teach a classical theistic view.

As for the quotes above the first one by Joseph Smith is interesting and is used here is out of context. The full quote is as follows:

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, and the officers to officiate, the same; the ordinances to fulfill its requirements, the same, and the signs and fruits resulting from the promises, the same: therefore, as Noah was a preacher of righteousness he must have been baptized and ordained to the priesthood by the laying on of the hands, etc. For no man taketh this honor unto himself except he be called of God as was Aaron, and Aaron was baptized in the cloud and in the sea, together with all Israel, as is related by the Apostle in Corinthians. This position or fact, is witnessed in this manner: the covenant of circumcision made with Abraham, and practiced steadily up to the departing of Israel out of Egypt, was abandoned in the wilderness, forty years—and renewed by Joshua after he passed over Jordan, and encamped at Gilgal, where he made sharp knives and circumcised the whole male portion of the church. (109)

The statement by the Prophet was given September 1, 1842. Note that this is well into the period that Mr. Jones claims that Joseph made his massive change from a classical theistic view of God. Accordingly it is doubtful that then, or any time in his ministry, that Joseph thought and meant such a statement to mean that nothing could be revealed that was not found absolutely in the existing scriptures. Remember that one of the pivotal founding truths of the restoration of the Church is that God would continue to reveal knowledge to us, perhaps even doctrine that had never been revealed. As pointed out already, if a revelation is given that is not found in agreement with the scriptures it is first agreed upon within the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles. The doctrine is then presented to the Church for ratification. Other wise it is not doctrine. Additionally the quote above is not even referring to all doctrine but rather the consistency of the gospel (the good news of Jesus Christ’s salvation of mankind) and the authority to administer in the ordinances thereof and the manner in which such ordinances are given. Specifically Baptism is the subject of the discourse. (110)

Mr. Jones use of D&C 18:3 is misapplied. The passage actually is emphasizing that Oliver Cowdry should rely on the scriptures because God had revealed to Oliver by the power of His Spirit that the scriptures are true. The passage follows full in context:

D&C 18:1-4

1 Now, behold, because of the thing which you, my servant Oliver Cowdery, have desired to know of me, I give unto you these words:

2 Behold, I have manifested unto you, by my Spirit in many instances, that the things which you have written are true; wherefore you know that they are true.

3 And if you know that they are true, behold, I give unto you a commandment, that you rely upon the things which are written;

4 For in them are all things written concerning the foundation of my church, my gospel, and my rock.

Mr. Jones uses the passage to support his position that we should not rely on feelings. Yet the passage supports exactly what I have been saying; that we read, study and pray for confirmation of the truth by the power of the Holy Ghost which confirmation comes by personal revelation to us. Further it is clear that this passage is referring specifically to the Book of Mormon! Mr. Jones has missed the mark by using this passage to support his argument regarding feelings and how Latter-day Saints are taught to confirm truth.

Jones:

Who really changed doctrine and tampered with scripture?
The Mormon Church teaches that the Bible has been tampered with, that it
used to teach doctrines which are missing or different today, and that
Christianity has changed it's basic beliefs (apostatized)?

Mr. Jones uses the word tampered in this section to flare up emotions. Be that as it may the position of the LDS Church regarding the Bible is another area that critics obfuscate. The plain and simple fact is that the LDS view of the Bible is nothing like the view our critics portray. Stephen Robinson has pointed out:

As Prof. Bloomberg points out, the LDS view of the nature of Scripture is actually closer to the Evangelical view than is the view held by liberal Protestants or Catholics. We take the Scriptures to be literally true, and we hold symbolic, figurative or allegorical interpretation to a minimum, accepting the miraculous events as historical and the moral and ethical teaching as binding and valid. What separates Latter-day Saints from evangelicals is less our view of the nature of scripture and more our view of canon….

The eighth article of faith, written by Joseph Smith in 1842 states that “we believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God.” Evangelicals sometimes take offense at the phrase “as far as it is translated correctly” but this should not be so. The wording is intended to communicate exactly the same caution to Latter-day Saints that the phrases “when all facts are known,” “in their original autographs,” and “properly interpreted” from the Chicago Statement on biblical Inerrancy are intended to convey to Evangelicals. By setting these very similar parameters, both Latter-day Saints and Evangelicals stipulate that the present text of Scripture may contain errors, and neither Mormons nor (most) Evangelicals would insist that any modern version can claim absolute inerrancy. (111)

Put another way I would inquire of Mr. Jones as to whether or not he uses the New World Translation of the Bible? If not, why not? Clearly because the translators monkeyed with the text. This is the same concern we have; our worries just go back further in time.

Jones:

But knowing that we have manuscripts which date back to the canonization of the Old and New
Testaments, shouldn't there be evidence, as in the case of the 1835 D&C, to
confirm such serious charges? Or did you accept the church's claims because
it seemed to make sense or it felt right?

The topic of the integrity of the Biblical text is really a subject for another time and another paper. However I will point out that Mr. Jones statement regarding the Biblical manuscripts seems incredibly naïve or at least unaware of much of the scholarship on this subject. As for the manuscripts dating back to the canonization of the Bible keep in mind that such canonization did not take place until hundreds of years after the original autographs were written. In fact such